Soni Kamlesh Maganlal, Ahmedabad V. The ACIT, Circle-12, Ahmedabad

ITA 1054/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4100 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 27-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MAHESH SHAH
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVATIA
• Keywords: Revised return
• Section: 148; 271(1)(c); 143(3); 133A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.1053/AHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) SONI ASHOKKUMAR MAGANLAL 29, NEW RANGBAG SOCIETY, NR. HATKESH MAHADEV KHOKHARA, MANINAGAR, AHMEDABAD 380 008. [PAN NO. ASJPS 1673 C] VS. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 12, 1 ST FLOOR, NARAYAN CHAMBERS ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD. I.T.A. NO. 1054/AHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) SONI KAMLESH MAGANLAL 29, NEW RANGBAG SOCIETY, NR. HATKESH MAHADEV KHOKHARA, AHMEDABAD 380 008. [ PAN NO. AJMPS 6722 N] VS. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 12, AHMEDABAD. I.T.A. NO. 1055/AHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) SONI HIRALAL MAGANLAL 6, RAMAN VILLA APARTMENT, NR. ABHA LABORATORY, VALLABHWADI BUS STAND, BHAIRAVNATH ROAD, MANINAGAR, AHMEDABAD 380 008. VS. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 12, AHMEDABAD. [PAN NO. AJMPS 6723 P] ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. N. DIVATIA, A.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MAHESH SHAH, CIT D.R. DATE OF HEARING 29.01.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 08.02.2019 - 2 - ITA NOS.1053, 1054 & 1055/AHD/2016 ASST.YEAR-2009-10 O R D E R PER MS. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: THE BUNCH OF APPEALS FILED BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES A RE AGAINST THE ORDERS DATED 21.12.2015 & 21.11.2015 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-6, AHMEDABAD ARISING OUT OF THE ORDERS ALL DATED 29.05 .2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 U NDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS THE ACT). SINCE THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THESE CASES ARE IDENTI CAL THE SAME ARE HEARD ANALOGOUSLY AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY A COMMON ORDER. ITA NO.105 3/AHD/2016 IS TAKEN AS THE LEAD CASE. 2. THE BRIEF FACT LEADING TO THESE CASES IS THIS TH AT THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2009-10 ON 02.01.2010, DE CLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.4,59,510/- WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUE NTLY ON 18.05.2010, A SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED WHERE INTRODUCTION OF SHARE CAPITAL WITH PREMIUM IN M/S. CHOKSHI MAGANLAL JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., BY THE DIRECTORS/SHARE HOLDERS OF THE COMPANY WAS DETECTED. IT WAS RELEVANT TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE SAID COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED RS.1.60 CRORES AS UNDISCLOSED IN COME AND PRAYED FOR IMMUNITY FOR PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT BY A LETTER DATED 21.10.2010. ON 03.12.2010 REVISED RETURN WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DECLARING TOTAL IN COME OF RS.1,64,59,510/- INCLUDING 1.60 CRORES IN RESPECT OF SHARE CAPITAL INTRODUCED IN TH E SAID COMPANY. THE CASE WAS SUBSEQUENTLY REOPENED BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 30.03.2013 I.E. AFTER 27 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF FILING OF REVISED RETURN UPON WHICH THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY HIM TO THE TUNE OF RS.1.60 CRORES TOWARDS INTRODUCTION OF SHARE CAPITAL WITH PREMIUM IN M/S. CHOKSHI MAGANLAL JEWELLERS PVT. LTD. BY FILING REVISED RETURN OF INCOME ON 03.12.2010. T HE ASSESSMENT WAS FINALLY COMPLETED ON 11.02.2014 ACCEPTING THE INCOME DISCLOSED IN THE REVISED RETURN OF THE ASSESSEE. - 3 - ITA NOS.1053, 1054 & 1055/AHD/2016 ASST.YEAR-2009-10 ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED AO SUCH DISCLOSURE WAS OF THE RESULT OF SURVEY ACTION CONDUCTED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING. HAD THERE BEEN NO SURVEY CONDUCTED BY THE DEPARTMENT, THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE NOT DISCLOSED T HE INCOME FOR TAXATION AND THUS THE PENALTY PROCEEDING U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS INI TIATED BY THE LEARNED AO. THE SAME WAS CONCLUDED BY THE LEARNED AO UPON LEVYING PENALT Y TO THE TUNE OF RS.5,50,000/- ON THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A). HENCE THE INSTANT APPEAL. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, LEARNED CO UNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE REVISED RETURN MUCH BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THE DISCLOSU RE SO MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY WAS ALSO DECLARED IN SUCH REVISED RETURN AND TAX WAS DULY PAID THEREON. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED BY THE LEARNED ADVOCATE THAT TO P URCHASE PEACE, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED SUCH INCOME UPON ASSURANCE GIVEN BY THE S URVEY OFFICERS THAT PENALTY WOULD NOT BE LEVIED UPON HIM AS ALSO APPEARING IN THE LET TER WRITTEN TO THE INVESTIGATION WING ON 20.10.2010 BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS ACCORDING TO THE L EARNED AO PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE OR DER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES. WE HAVE PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME ON 02.01.2010 AND THE SAM E WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, A SURVEY PROCEEDING WAS CONDUCTE D BY THE INVESTIGATION WING, AHMEDABAD ON 18.05.2010 WHEN THE INTRODUCTION OF SH ARE CAPITAL WITH PREMIUM TO M/S. CHOKSHI MAGANLAL JEWELLERS PVT. LTD. BY THE DIRECTO RS/SHARE HOLDERS OF THE COMPANY WAS DETECTED. ON 03.12.2010, THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED 1.6 0 CRORES TOWARDS INTRODUCTION OF SHARE IN M/S. CHOKSHI MAGANLAL JEWELLERS PVT. LTD. BY WAY OF A REVISED RETURN. NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 30.03.2013 WAS ISSUED UPON THE ASSESSEE WHERE UPON THE REVISED RETURN FILED DATED 03.12.2010 WAS REQUESTED TO BE CONSIDERED AS THE RE TURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSE SSED AT RS.1,64,59,510/- AND PENALTY - 4 - ITA NOS.1053, 1054 & 1055/AHD/2016 ASST.YEAR-2009-10 PROCEEDING WAS ALSO INITIATED ON THE PRIMA FACIE FI NDING OF DISCLOSURE OF INCOME BEING MADE AS A RESULT OF SURVEY PROCEEDING AND NOT VOLUN TARY. 5. IN FACT IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDING WHEN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 271(1)(C) WAS ISSUED UPON THE ASSESSEE DIRECTING HIM TO EXPLAIN A S TO WHY THE PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, THE ASS ESSEE FURNISHED A LETTER DATED 21.03.2014 EXPLAINING THE FOLLOWING: I. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 02.01.20 10 RS.4,59,510/-; TOTAL TAX OF RS.55,794/- WAS PAID; II. THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED DECLARING RS .1,64,59,510/- ON 03.12.2010; THE TOTAL TAX OF RS.70,06,683/- WAS PAI D ON 18.05.2010. SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING, AHMEDABAD IN THE CASE OF HIRALAL MAGANLAL JEWELLARS PVT. LTD. WHERE THE ASSESSEE DEC LARED RS.160.00 LACS AS INVESTED IN THE SHARE OF CHOKSHI HIRALAL MAGANLAL P VT. LTD. DURING THE YEAR UNDER ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 30.03.2013; III. REPLY TO THE NOTICE WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE ON 13 .05.2013; IV. ON 08.08.2013, THE ASSESSMENT NOTICE WAS ISSUED; V. FINALLY ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 26.11.2013 W ITH NIL DEMAND. FURTHER THAT, THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT BY A ND UNDER A LETTER DATED 18.05.2010, THE ASSESSEE HAS ASKED FOR IMMUNITY OF PENALTY FOR INCOME DECLARED IN SURVEY BEFORE THE INVESTIGATION WING. THE REVISED RETURN DATED 03.12. 2010 SO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS TO PURCHASE PEACE AND TO AVOID LITIGATION. VOLUNTARY A MOUNT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ON GOOD FAITH THAT NO PENALTY COULD BE LEVIED. MORE SO, REVISED RETURN WAS FILED BEFORE THE ISSUANCE U/S 148 OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS DONE ON THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME. FURTHERMORE, NO ADDITION ON THE INCOME DECLARED IN THE REVISED RETURN WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AT THE TIME OF DISCLOSING OF INC OME IN SURVEY ASSURANCE WAS GIVEN FOR LIABILITY TO PAY TAX ONLY AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSE E WOULD NOT BE LIABLE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE ASSESSEE PRAYED FOR DROPPING OF PENALTY BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HOWEVER, SUCH PLEA OF THE ASSESS EE WAS NOT ACCEDED TO BY THE LEARNED - 5 - ITA NOS.1053, 1054 & 1055/AHD/2016 ASST.YEAR-2009-10 AO AND BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AS WELL ON THE PREMISE THAT VOLUNTARILY DISCLOSURE DOES NOT RELEASE THE ASSESSEE FROM PENAL PROCEEDING. THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED SUCH AMOUNT OF INCOME AFTER THE SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED BY FILING OF REVISED RETURN OF INCOME THUS THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS BONAFIDE AS ALSO OBSER VED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISCLOSE THIS INCOME IN ITS ORIGIN AL RETURN FILED. IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT SUCH DISCLOSURE HAS BEEN MADE PURELY ON ACCOUNT OF SURVEY CONDUCTED BY THE REVENUE AND THUS IT IS A CASE OF I NTENTIONAL CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED AO IMPOSING PENALTY HAS BEEN THUS CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). 6. A PLAIN READING OF THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE AS SESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED AO CLEARLY SPEAKS OF ADMISSION ON THE PART OF THE ASSE SSEE THAT ONLY UPON THE DETECTION OF INTRODUCTION OF SHARE CAPITAL WITH PREMIUM WITH M/S . CHOKSHI MAGANLAL JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., BY THE INVESTIGATION WING SUCH DISCLOSURE OF RS.1.60 CRORES WAS MADE BY HIM. DISCLOSURE ON THE PREMISE TO PURCHASE PEACE AND TO AVOID LITIGATION FURTHER JUSTIFIES NOT A VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE BUT AN ATTEMPT TO WRIGGLE OUT FROM THE SITUATION CREATED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING DURING THE SURVEY MORE PARTICULA RLY BEEN CONFRONTED WITH THE INCRIMINATING MATERIALS FOUND THEREIN. THE INTENTIO N OF THE ASSESSEE BY DISCLOSING THE AMOUNT IN THE REVISED RETURN DOES NOT PROVE HIS BON AFIDE NEITHER THE SURRENDER OF INCOME WAS VOLUNTARY. IF THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE IS CO MING UNDER THE PURVIEW OF EXPLANATION 1 OF SECTION 271(1)(C) THEN THE INCOME SO DISCLOS ED BY HIM REPRESENTS THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN CONCEALED. I T IS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT THE INCOME SO DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE REVISED RETURN WAS CONCEALED WHILE FILING THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEES PLEA THAT DECLARATION WAS MADE BY REVISED RETURN OR THAT THE ASSESSEE ASKED FOR IMMUNITY FROM PENALTY FOR INCOME DECLARED IN SURVEY BY AND UNDER LETTER DATED 18.05.2010 OR THAT DISCLO SURE WAS MADE TO PURCHASE PEACE AND TO AVOID LITIGATION OR THAT THE REVISED RETURN WAS FILED BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OR THAT THERE IS NO ADDITION ON THE INCOME DECLARED IN REVISED RETURN AND THEREFORE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) CANNOT BE LEVIED IS NOT TEN ABLE IN LAW. APART FROM THAT, VOLUNTARY - 6 - ITA NOS.1053, 1054 & 1055/AHD/2016 ASST.YEAR-2009-10 DISCLOSURE DOES NOT RELEASE THE ASSESSEE FROM THE M ISCHIEF OF PENALTY PROCEEDING. STATUTE DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THOSE TYPE OF DEFENSES UNDER THE EXPLANATION OF SECTION-1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. ALL SUCH ISSUES HAVE ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE JUDGMENT OF MAK DATA PVT. LTD.-VS-CIT [2013] 38 TAXMANN.COM 448 (SC). THE RELEVANT PORTION OF SAID JUDGMENT IS AS FOLLOWS : 6. WE HAVE HEARD COUNSEL ON EITHER SIDE. WE FULLY CON CUR WITH THE VIEW OF THE HIGH COURT THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD OR APPRECIATED THE SCOPE OF EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, WHIC H READS AS FOLLOWS :- 'EXPLANATION 1 - WHERE IN RESPECT OF ANY FACTS MATE RIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF ANY PERSON UNDER THIS ACT, - (A) SUCH PERSON FAILS TO OFFER AN EXPLANATION OR OFFERS AN EXPLANATION WHICH IS FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR THE COMMISSIONER TO BE FALSE, OR (B) SUCH PERSON OFFERS AN EXPLANATION WHICH HE IS NOT A BLE TO SUBSTANTIATE AND FAILS TO PROVE THAT SUCH EXPLANATION IS BONA FIDE A ND THAT ALL THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SAME AND MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF HIS TOTAL INCOME HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED BY HIM, THEN THE AMOUNT ADDED OR DISALLOW ED IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF SUCH PERSON AS A RESULT THEREOF SHALL, FO R THE PURPOSES OF CLAUSE (C) OF THIS SUB- SECTION, BE DEEMED TO REPRESENT THE INCOME IN RESPE CT OF WHICH PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN CONCEALED.' 7. THE AO, IN OUR VIEW, SHALL NOT BE CARRIED AWAY BY THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE LIKE 'VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE', 'BUY PEACE', 'AVOID LITIGAT ION', 'AMICABLE SETTLEMENT', ETC. TO EXPLAIN AWAY ITS CONDUCT. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER T HE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED ANY EXPLANATION FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOM E OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. EXPLANATION TO SECTION 271(1 ) RAISES A PRESUMPTION OF CONCEALMENT, WHEN A DIFFERENCE IS NOTICED BY THE AO , BETWEEN REPORTED AND ASSESSED INCOME. THE BURDEN IS THEN ON THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW OTHERWISE, BY COGENT AND RELIABLE EVIDENCE. WHEN THE INITIAL ONUS PLACED BY THE EXPLA NATION, HAS BEEN DISCHARGED BY HIM, THE ONUS SHIFTS ON THE REVENUE TO SHOW THAT TH E AMOUNT IN QUESTION CONSTITUTED THE INCOME AND NOT OTHERWISE. 8. ASSESSEE HAS ONLY STATED THAT HE HAD SURRENDERED T HE ADDITIONAL SUM OF RS.40,74,000/- WITH A VIEW TO AVOID LITIGATION, BUY PEACE AND TO CHANNELIZE THE ENERGY AND RESOURCES TOWARDS PRODUCTIVE WORK AND TO MAKE AMICABLE SETTLEMENT WITH THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. STATUTE DOES NOT RECOGNI ZE THOSE TYPES OF DEFENCES UNDER THE EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT. IT IS TRITE LAW THAT THE VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE DOES NOT RELEASE THE APPELLANT-ASSESSEE FROM THE MISCHIEF OF PENAL PROCEEDINGS. THE LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE THAT WHEN AN ASSESSEE MAKES A VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE OF HIS CONCEALED INCOME, HE HAD TO BE AB SOLVED FROM PENALTY. - 7 - ITA NOS.1053, 1054 & 1055/AHD/2016 ASST.YEAR-2009-10 9. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE SURRENDER OF INCOME IN THIS CASE IS NOT VOLUNTARY IN THE SENSE THAT THE OFFER OF SURRENDER WAS MADE IN VIEW OF DETECTION MADE BY THE AO IN THE SEARCH CONDUCTED IN THE SISTER CONCERN OF THE A SSESSEE. IN THAT SITUATION, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE SURRENDER OF INCOME WAS VOLUNTARY. AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS NOTICED THAT CERTAIN DOC UMENTS COMPRISING OF SHARE APPLICATION FORMS, BANK STATEMENTS, MEMORANDUM OF A SSOCIATION OF COMPANIES, AFFIDAVITS, COPIES OF INCOME TAX RETURNS AND ASSESS MENT ORDERS AND BLANK SHARE TRANSFER DEEDS DULY SIGNED, HAVE BEEN IMPOUNDED IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 133A CONDUCTED ON 16.12.2003, IN THE CASE OF A SISTER CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED MORE THAN 10 MON THS BEFORE THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME. HAD IT BEEN THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE FULL AND TRUE DISCLOSURE OF ITS INCOME, IT WOULD HAVE FILED THE R ETURN DECLARING AN INCOME INCLUSIVE OF THE AMOUNT WHICH WAS SURRENDERED LATER DURING TH E COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. CONSEQUENTLY, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD NO INTENTION TO DECLARE ITS TRUE INCOME. IT IS THE STATUTORY DUTY OF THE AS SESSEE TO RECORD ALL ITS TRANSACTIONS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF PAYM ENTS MADE BY IT AND TO DECLARE ITS TRUE INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY IT FRO M YEAR TO YEAR. THE AO, IN OUR VIEW, HAS RECORDED A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT HE WA S SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED TRUE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND IS LIABLE FOR PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271 READ WITH SECTION 274 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 10. THE AO HAS TO SATISFY WHETHER THE PENALTY PROCEEDI NGS BE INITIATED OR NOT DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE AO IS NOT REQUIRED TO RECORD HIS SATISFACTION IN A PARTICULAR MANNER OR REDUCE IT IN TO WRITING. THE SCOPE OF SECTION 271(L)(C) HAS ALSO BEEN ELABORATELY DISCUSSED BY TH IS COURT IN UNION OF INDIA V. DHARMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS [2008] 13 SCC 369 AND CIT V. ATUL MOHAN BINDAL [2009] 9 SCC 589. 11. THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THIS COURT, IN OUR VIEW , HAS BEEN CORRECTLY FOLLOWED BY THE REVENUE AND WE FIND NO ILLEGALITY IN THE DEP ARTMENT INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IN THE INSTANT CASE. WE, THEREFORE, FUL LY AGREE WITH THE VIEW OF THE HIGH COURT. HENCE, THE APPEAL LACKS MERIT AND IS DISMISS ED. THERE SHALL BE NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. 7. IT ALSO APPEARS FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE APPELLANT FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS AND/OR CREDITWORTHINESS AND IDENTITY OF THE PERSONS WHO HAD GIVEN SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM. MORESO, HAD IT BEEN THE INTENTION OF THE A PPELLANT TO DISCLOSE THE INCOME VOLUNTARILY THEN THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE DISCLOSED THE SAME BY FILING THE REVISED RETURN BEFORE SURVEY WHICH PROVES INACCURATE PARTICULARS W ERE FILED IN ORDER TO CONCEAL THE INCOME IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. EXPLANATIO N 1A TO SECTION 271(1)(C), THEREFORE, - 8 - ITA NOS.1053, 1054 & 1055/AHD/2016 ASST.YEAR-2009-10 IS FULLY SATISFIED AND THUS ULTIMATELY PENALTY TO T HE TUNE OF RS.5,50,000/- HAS BEEN LEVIED UPON THE ASSESSEE FOR CONCEALMENT OF TOTAL INCOME O F RS.1,60,00,000/-. 8. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ENTIRE ASPECT OF T HE MATTER SPECIALLY THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE INTENTION AS EVIDENT FROM THE SERIES OF EVENTS AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT AS CITED ABOVE WE FIND THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW RIGHTLY APPLIED THE RATIO OF SAID JUDGMENT IN THE CASE IN HAND AND LEVIED PENALTY. 9. WE FIND NO AMBIGUITY IN CONFIRMING THE SAID PENA LTY BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) APPLYING THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT. HENCE IN THE AB SENCE OF ANY INFIRMITY THE ORDER IMPUGNED BEFORE US IS CONFIRMED. 10. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES ALL APPEALS ARE DISMI SSED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 08/02/2019 SD/- SD/- ( WASEEM AHMED ) ( MS. MADHUMITA ROY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 08/02/2019 PRITI YADAV, SR.PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. () / THE CIT(A)-6, AHMEDABAD. 5. , ! ' , #$%% / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. &' () / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) !, #$ / ITAT, AHMEDABAD