Jujaj Ahmed, Gurgaon V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1046/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7311 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 08-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 29-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K SAROHA
• Assessee Lawyers: KUNAL AGGARWAL
• Keywords: Assessment record

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH C, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.1046/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12) JUJAJ AHMED, VS. ITO, WARD 57(1), 455/2, ADARSH NAGAR, NEW DELHI NEW RAILWAY ROAD, GURGAON GIR / PAN : AFBPA2068Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY :MR. KUNAL AGGARWAL, CA RESPONDENT BY :SHRI A. K. SAROHA, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING: 08.06.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16.06.2016 ORDER PER BEENA A. PILLAI, JM: THE PRESENT PENALTY APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.11.2015 PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) IX, NEW DELHI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 11-12 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: PENALTY ON ESTIMATED BASIS ON DISCLOSED CREDIT TRANSACTIONS: 1. WHETHER THE LD CIT(A)-19, NEW DELHI JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE CONCEALMENT PENALTY ON THE INCOME CALCULATED ON ESTIMATED BASIS ON THE DISCLOSED CRED IT TRANSACTIONS IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS? 2 I.T.A.NO.1046/DEL/2016 PENALTY ON ESTIMATED BASIS ON VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED BANK ACCOUNT: 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A)-19 NEW DELHI HAS FAILED T O APPRECIATE THAT SURRENDERED BANK ACCOUNT WAS NOT DETECTED BY A.O. DURING ASSESSMENT AT ANY STAGE, IT WAS VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, PENALTY U/S 271(L)(C) CANNOT BE LEVIED. 2.1 WHETHER THE LD CIT(A)-19, NEW DELHI JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE CONCEALMENT PENALTY IN SPITE OF ASSE SSEE'S AGREEMENT TO AN ADDITION OF INCOME ON ESTIMATED BAS IS WHICH WAS FAR EXCESSIVE THAN ACTUAL INCOME EARNED I REMAINING FUNDS IN BANK ACCOUNT SURRENDERED VOLUNTA RILY? PENALTY FOR MISTAKE OF PROFESSIONAL 3. WHETHER THE LD CIT(A)-19, NEW DELHI JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE CONCEALMENT PENALTY BECAUSE OF INADV ERTENT MISTAKE OF AN ACCOUNTANT AND DISREGARDING THE AFFID AVIT FILED BY THE ASSESEE'S ACCOUNTANT? PENALTY ON INCOME CALCULATED ON ESTIMATED BASIS 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO OTHER GROUNDS, WHETHER THE LD CIT(A)-19, NEW DELHI WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING TH E CONCEALMENT PENALTY ON THE INCOME CALCULATED ON ESTIMATED BASIS (I.E. WHERE THE QUANTUM OF EXACT IN COME IS NOT ASCERTAINABLE)? RELIEF CLAIMED:-THAT THE PENALTY U/S 271(L)(C) AMOU NTING TO RS. 7,13,200/- BE DELETED. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS A RESIDENT INDIVIDUAL AND FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 25.11.2011 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.14,78,840/- . THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN M ETAL SCRAP UNDER TWO ENTITIES BEING, M/S. GULSHAN INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) AND M/S. ROCK INTERNATIONAL ( INDIA). 3 I.T.A.NO.1046/DEL/2016 DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, LD. A.O. OBSERVE D VARIOUS DISCREPANCIES IN RESPECT OF THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. IT WAS OBSER VED BY THE A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCLOSED CERTAI N BANK ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED IN THE NAME OF M/S. GULSHAN INTERNATIONAL. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE INCOME AROSE FROM M/S. ROCK INTERNAT IONAL INDIA. CONSIDERING THE DISCREPANCIES, THE ASSESSEE AGREED ON THE PROFITS BEING ESTIMATED @ 6% ON AD-HOC BASIS . DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE SURRENDERED CERTAIN AMOUNTS AS WELL AS THE CASH DEP OSITS WHICH WAS FOUND IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. LD. A.O. PAS SED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY ASSESSING THE INCOME AT RS.37,86,550/-. HE INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER ADMITTED HIS MISTAKE OF NOT INCLUDING THE TURNOVER EARNED FROM R OCK INTERNATIONAL INDIA. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVE D THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE DETAILS AS REQUIRE D, TO SUBSTANTIATE THE BONA FIDE MISTAKE OF NOT DISCLOSIN G THE TRUE AND CORRECT MATERIAL IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. LD. A.O. PASSED THE PENALTY ORDER BY LEVYING PENALTY OF RS.7,13,200/-. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPE AL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO CONFIRMED THE PENALTY, AS THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SATISFACTORY AND THAT THE SURRENDER SO MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION UNEARTHED BY THE 4 I.T.A.NO.1046/DEL/2016 ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS . HE THUS CONFIRMED THE FINDINGS OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICE R THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT INTENTIONALLY. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESS EE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US NOW. 5. GROUND NO.1: THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT DURING SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE SUO MOTO OFFERED FOR TAXATION ON ESTIMATED BASIS PROFIT ARISING FROM TUR NOVER IN UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT ON CONDITIONAL BASIS TO BU Y PEACE AND TO AVOID LITIGATION. 6. GROUND NO.2: LD. A.R. TRIED TO PUT UP AN ARGUMENT THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSE E HAD SURRENDERED THE TURNOVER IN THE FOLLOWING UNDISCLOS ED BANK ACCOUNTS: S.NO. BANK NAME ACCOUNT NO. TYPE OF A/C 1 ICICI BANK LTD. 072305000201 CURRENT 2 ICICI BANK LTD. 072305000511 CURRENT 3 ICICI BANK LTD. 033001002107 SAVING 6.1 LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE BANK ACCOUNTS WERE NEVER DETECTED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. THESE WERE SURRENDERED VOLUNTARILY. 7. GROUND NO.3 : LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT IN RELATION TO ROCK INTERNATIONAL IN PARA 11 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER, THAT LD. A.O. ACCEPTED THE AUDITED RESULTS OF SAID RETUR NED INCOME, ERGO, ADDITION OF RS.5,69,710/- WAS MADE, B EING AUDITED NET PROFIT AS COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE. 7.1 LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT WHILE FILLING THE INCO ME TAX RETURN FOR THE A.Y. 2011-12, ASSESSEE'S ACCOUNTANT 5 I.T.A.NO.1046/DEL/2016 INADVERTENTLY DIDN'T MERGE THE INCOME OF M/S. ROCK INTERNATIONAL IN INCOME TAX RETURN. LD. A.O. CAME T O KNOW ABOUT M/S. ROCK INTERNATIONAL FROM CIB INFORMATION. LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS U NDER BONA-FIDE BELIEF THAT HE HAD DISCLOSED ALL HIS INCO ME. LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL WITH VILLAGE BACKGROUND AND DOES NOT POSSESS SUFFICIENT KNOWLEDG E ABOUT INCOME TAX RETURNS. LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE RECONCILED ALL HIS FINANCIALS, BANK STATEM ENTS WITH THE HELP OF HIS COUNSEL. LD. A.R. SUBMITTED T HAT IT WAS AT THAT TIME, THE ASSESSEE REALIZED THAT HE DID N'T DISCLOSE THE INCOME OF RS.5,69,710/- IN INCOME TAX RETURN. IT WAS ALSO LEARNT THAT CURRENT ACCOUNT IN M/S. GULSHAN INTERNATIONAL WAS ALSO NOT CONSIDERED IN TH E BALANCE SHEET OF M/S GULSHAN INTERNATIONAL. LD. A.R . SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SURRENDERED THE INCOME OF RS. 5,69,710/- AND TOTAL CREDIT TRANSACTION IN UNDI SCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT AS TURNOVER. LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE AGREED ON THE ADDITION MERELY TO BUY PEACE AND TO AVOID LITIGATION. LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT FINANC IALS OF M/S. ROCK INTERNATIONAL WERE DULY AUDITED AND LD. A .O. HAD ACCEPTED THE AUDITED RESULT. IT IS SUBMITTED TH AT, THERE WAS NO INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO HIDE/SUPP RESS THIS INCOME. LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS DUE TO ACCOUNTANT'S MISTAKE AND THE ACCOUNTANT HAS ACCEPTE D HIS MISTAKE BY FILLING AN AFFIDAVIT (PLACED AT PAGE S NO.31 & 32 OF THIS PAPER BOOK). LD. CIT (A) HOWEVER, DISCRE DITED THE 6 I.T.A.NO.1046/DEL/2016 AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ACCOUNTANT BY CONSIDERING IT TO BE NOT GENUINE. 8. GROUND NO.4 : LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT LD. A.O. HAS CALCULATED THE INCOME ON ESTIMATE BASIS BY APPLYING FLAT RATE OF 6% ON TOTAL CREDIT TRANSACTIONS. HE SUBMITT ED THAT IN TOTAL CREDIT TRANSACTIONS, THERE ARE SOME LOANS AND ADVANCES CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM ONE BANK ACCOUNT AND DEPOSITED INTO ANOTHER BANK ACCOUNT, FEW TRANSACTIO NS WERE IN FORM OF ADVANCES. BY DISCREDITING THE ABOVE TRANSACTIONS, LD. AD CONSIDERED THE TOTAL CREDIT TRANSACTION AS TURNOVER AND APPLIED THE FLAT RATE O F PROFIT @6%. LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD AGREED ON ESTIMATED ADDITION MERELY TO BUY PEACE AND TO AVOID LITIGATION. 8.1 HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MAD E ADDITIONS EVEN ON DISCLOSED ITEMS AND THE ASSESSEE HAD SUO MOTU MADE DECLARATION TO BUY PEACE FROM THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE FAILURE TO INCL UDE THE INCOME FROM M/S. ROCK INTERNATIONAL IS A BONA FIDE MISTAKE. HE THUS REQUESTED THAT THE PENALTY MAY BE DROPPED. 9. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O . HAD SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR THE DETAILS OF BANK ACCO UNTS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD REP LIED DECLARING THREE BANK ACCOUNTS AS UNDER: S.NO. BANK NAM & BRANCH ACCOUNT NO. 1 HDFC BANK LTD., PREET VIHAR 15612020002527 7 I.T.A.NO.1046/DEL/2016 2 ICICI BANK LTD. PREET VIHAR 003705008499 3 SBI, YAMUNA VIHAR, DELHI 31234407486 9.1 THE RELEVANT ANNEXURE HAVE BEEN PLACED AT PAGE 3 OF THE COMPILATION SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R. THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CLAIMING THAT THERE WAS ONLY ONE BANK ACCOUNTS THAT WAS UNDISCLOSED, OU T OF NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF ACCOUNTANT. HOWEVER, THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. D.R. SHOW THAT T HE BANK ACCOUNTS WITH HDFC BANK LTD., ICICI BANK LTD. AND SBI, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. HE FURTHER REFERRED THA T AT PAGE 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISCLOSED THE DETAILS REVEALED BY INVES TIGATION WING SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING SEVEN BANK ACCOUNTS. AS THE CHART HAS BEEN REPRODUCED AT PAGE 3 OF THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ORDER, THE SAME IS NOT BEIN G REPRODUCED HEREIN. 9.2 LD. D.R. DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE L ETTER DATED 13.03.2014, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THA T THE ACCOUNTANT FORGOT TO CONSIDER ONE BANK ACCOUNT HELD WITH ICICI BANK LTD. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. 9.3 LD. D.R. SUBMITS THAT THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE DETAIL SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE NOW VIS--VIS DOCU MENTS OBTAINED FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS ARE CONTRARY W ITH 8 I.T.A.NO.1046/DEL/2016 EACH OTHER. HE, THUS SUBMITTED THAT THE SUBMISSION S ARE NOT BONA FIDE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DEMONS TRATE THE SAME BY WAY OF ANY MATERIAL / EVIDENCE ON RECOR D AND THUS, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE REQUIREM ENT AS SPECIFIED UNDER EXPLANATION (1) AND (2) TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 9.4 LD. D.R. FURTHER REFERRED TO LETTER DATED 13.03 .2014 WHEREIN THE OPENING LINE SAYS THAT AS THE ACCOUNTAN T WAS HELD UP WITH SOME LITIGATION IN HIS FAMILY AT HIS N ATIVE VILLAGE IN U.P. AND THAT THE ACCOUNTS WERE PREPARED WHEN HE RETURNED. LD. D.R. SUBMITS THAT IT IS CLEAR FRO M SUCH STATEMENTS MADE BY ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OF FICER THAT THE BANK ACCOUNTS WERE NOT MAINTAINED ON DAY T O DAY BASIS. HE SUBMITTED THAT VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES WER E GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE, TO SUBMIT BANK ACCOUNTS, WHICH HAV E NOT BEEN FULFILLED BY THE ASSESSEE. LD. D.R. REFERRED TO THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE ACCOUNTANT, MR. NAEEM AH MED. LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT IN THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 20.0 7.2015, THERE ARE THREE BANK ACCOUNTS WHICH HAVE BEEN SAID TO BE MISSED OUT BY THE ACCOUNTANT, MR. NAEEM AHMAD. LD. D.R. SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVING SUCH A HUGE TURNOVER, HAS ONLY ONE EMPLOYEE BEING THIS ACCOUNTA NT, MR. NAEEM AHMED, WHO HAS SHOWN HIS FAILURE BEFORE T HE A.O. AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. LD. D. R. RELIED UPON THE ANNEXURE 3 TO THE COMPILATION AT PA GE 4 FILED BEFORE US. 9 I.T.A.NO.1046/DEL/2016 9.5 LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF ASSESS EE THAT INCOME FROM ROCK INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) HAS BEEN UNDISCLOSED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBTAINED TH E DETAILS OF ROCK INTERNATIONAL INDIA FROM CIB INFORM ATION SHOWING CASH DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS.41,00,000/- LD. D.R. SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE THE CASH DEPOSITS EVEN THOUGH THE ACCOUNTS OF ROCK INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) WERE AUDITED. LD. D.R. SUBMI TS THAT THERE ARE CONTRADICTIONS IN THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW VIS--VIS THI S TRIBUNAL. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED ITS ONUS AND THE BONA FIDE HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED AS SIMILAR MISTAKES HAVE CREPT IN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A). THE RELEVANT OBSER VATION OF LD. CIT(A) ARE REPRODUCED AT PAGE 18 OF HIS ORDE R. THE LD. D.R. THUS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCE ALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND HAS ALSO FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT DISCHARGED THE ONUS OF PROVID ING A SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION TO ESTABLISH THE BONA FIDE . 10. WE HAVE HEAD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. THE ASSESSEE DEALS IN S CRAP AND THERE ARE POSSIBILITIES THAT THE SELLERS COULD NOT BE PRODUCED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING SALES / PU RCHASE OF SCRAP. THE MAIN ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IS THI S THAT 10 I.T.A.NO.1046/DEL/2016 AS SUFFICIENT SURRENDER HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESS EE SUO MOTU , THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST HIM SHOULD BE QUASHED. LD. A.R. PLACED HIS RELIANCE UP ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS RELIANCE PETRO PRODU CTS PVT. LTD. REPORTED IN 322 ITR 158. 10.1 IN OUR OPINION, THERE IS A BASIC FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IGNORANCE AND BONA FIDE MISTAKE. IN THE FIRST CASE, ASSESSEE CANNOT BE EXCLUDED FROM TH E PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AS THERE IS WILLFUL OMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN DISCLOSING HIS TRUE AND CORRECT INCOME. WHEREAS, IN THE SECOND CASE, THE OMISSION MUST BE BECOME AS INADVERTENCE, WHICH CAN BE DUE TO HUMAN ERROR. IT CANNOT BE IGNORED THAT HUMAN ERROR MUST BE TESTED ON PROBABILITIES. NO DOUBT THAT THE COURTS ARE LIBERAL WHEN ANY BONA FIDE MISTAKE IS MADE, BUT VER Y HARSH WHEN THERE IS A WILLFUL OMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE FULL AND TRUE DISCLOSURE OF ITS IN COME. PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SUCH CA SES HAS BEEN INVARIABLY UPHELD. 10.2 THE QUESTION TO BE ASCERTAINED IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED ANY EXPLANATION FOR CONCEALMEN T OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. EXPLANATION TO SECTION 271 RESORTS PRESUMPTION OF CONCEALMENT NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO RESORTS TO ASSESS INCOME. THE BURDEN I S ON THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW OTHERWISE BY COGENT AND RELIAB LE EVIDENCE. WHEN THE INITIAL ONUS PLACED BY THE 11 I.T.A.NO.1046/DEL/2016 EXPLANATION HAS BEEN DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE, TH E ONUS SHIFTS ON THE REVENUE TO SHOW THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION CONSTITUTES THE INCOME AND NOT OTHERWISE. 10.3 IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY STATED THAT HE HAS SURRENDERE D THE ADDITIONAL SUM WITH A VIEW TO AVOID LITIGATION AND TO BUY PEACE OF MIND FROM THE DEPARTMENT. SUCH KIND OF EXPLANATION DOES NOT FIT INTO THE REQUIREMENTS LAID DOWN BY EXPLANATION (1) TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IT IS A TRAIT LAW THAT VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE DOES NOT RELIEV E THE ASSESSEE FROM THE MISCHIEF OF PENAL PROCEEDINGS. T HE LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE MAKES VOLUN TARY DISCLOSURE OF HIS CONCEALED INCOME, HE CAN BE ABSOL VED FROM PENALTY. 10.4 WE OBSERVE THAT THE SURRENDER OF INCOME IN CAS E OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT VOLUNTARY AS THE OFFER OF SURR ENDER WAS MADE IN LIEU OF CIB INFORMATION MADE AVAILABLE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS . IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS CONTRADICTED HIS OWN SUBMISSIONS FROM THE RELEVANT PAGES RELIED UPON BY THE LD. D.R. FILED IN THE COMPILATION. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND CONSIDERED ALL THE TRANSACTIONS AS REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE. THAT THE ASSESSEE SURRENDERED THE INCOME AS HE COULD NOT PROVE THE TRANSACTIONS AND ITS CASH DEPOSITS. HAD THE INTENT ION OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE FULL AND TRUE DISCLOSURE OF IT S INCOME, IT WOULD HAVE FILED THE RETURN DECLARING TH E 12 I.T.A.NO.1046/DEL/2016 INCOME INCLUDING OMISSION LATER DURING THE COURSE O F ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. CONSEQUENTLY, IT IS CLEAR T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO INTENTION TO DECLARE ITS TRUE INCOM E. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CATEGORICALLY RECORDED THE FI NDINGS THAT HE WAS SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEAL ED THE TRUE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND IS LIABLE FOR PENALT Y PROCEEDINGS U/S 271 READ WITH SECTION 274 OF THE AC T. THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY VARIOUS JUDGEMENTS OF T HIS COURT AS WELL AS HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AND HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAVE BEEN CORRECTLY FOLLOWED BY THE REVENUE A ND WE FIND NO ILLEGALITY IN THE DEPARTMENTS INITIATION O F PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IN THE INSTANT CASE. WE, THEREFORE FUL LY AGREE WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY LD. CIT(A) AND UPHOLD HIS DE CISION. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STA NDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH JUNE, 2016. SD./- SD./- (S. V. MEHROTRA) (BEENA A. PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 16 TH JUNE, 2016 SP. COPY FORWARDED TO:- THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI) 13 I.T.A.NO.1046/DEL/2016 S.NO. DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON SR. PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 15/6 SR. PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS 16/6/16 SR. PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6/6 SR. PS/PS 7 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK 16/6 SR. PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO HEAD CLERK 9 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO A.R. 10 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER