The ITO, Khargone V. Shri Prakash Paliwal, Barwani

ITA 11/IND/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4859 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 04-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Gift; Search and seizure; Fair market value; Wrong claim; Revised return; Bonafide mistake; Ignorance of law
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 133(6); 139(5); 148; 132; 15

Judgement Text

1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.11/IND/2013 A.Y. 2008-09 ITO, KHARGONE :: APPELLANT VS PRAKASH PALIWAL SENDHWA, DISTT.BARWANI PAN AKEPP 3892K :: RESPONDENT REVENUE BY SHRI R.A. VERMA ASSESSEE BY SHRI ANIL KAMAL GARG DATE OF HEARING 29.08.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 03.09.2013 O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DA TED 31 ST OCTOBER, 2012 OF THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHOR ITY, INDORE. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED IN THIS APPEAL PERTAINS TO D ELETING THE PENALTY OF RS. 18,41,000/-, IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) O F THE ACT. 2 2. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, WE HAVE HEARD SHR I R.A. VERMA, LEARNED SENIOR DR, AND SHRI ANIL KUMAR GARG, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. SENIOR DR IS THAT IN THE BOOKS OF 10 PARTIES THE BA LANCE WAS FOUND TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3,44,255/- AGAINST THE BA LANCE OF RS.57,46,232/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BOOKS R ESULTING INTO EXCESS CREDIT BALANCE OF RS.54,01,977/- AGAINST THE AFORESAID TEN PARTIES. OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PAGE 2 OF PEN ALTY ORDER. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN QUIRIES WERE CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUCH DI SCREPANCIES WERE FOUND. WHEN THESE DISCREPANCIES WERE BROUGHT T O THE NOTICE OF ASSESSEE, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.54,01,977/- W AS OFFERED FOR TAXATION. BROADLY IT WAS CONTENDED THAT SURRENDERIN G THE ENTIRE AMOUNT FOR TAXATION WAS PURSUANT TO DETAILED INVEST IGATION CARRIED OUT BY THE AO WHICH RESULTED INTO DISCREPAN CIES IN THE ACCOUNTS OF CREDITORS, THEREFORE, THE PENALTY WAS C LAIMED TO BE RIGHTLY IMPOSED. IT WAS PLEADED THAT RELIANCE ON TH E DECISION IN SURESHCHAND MITTAL; 241 ITR 124 (MP) IS MISPLACED B EING ON DIFFERENT FACTS AS IN THE CASE OF SURESHCHAND MITTA L THE SEARCH WAS CARRIED OUT U/S 132 OF THE ACT, NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED AND PURSUANT THERETO, THE ASSESSEE FILED REV ISED RETURN 3 DISCLOSING HIGHER INCOME. THE SAID REVISED RETURN W AS ALSO ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEREAS IN THE CA SE OF THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSMENT WAS CLAIMED TO BE COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND DUE TO INQUIRES CONDUCTED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER ON THE ISSUE OF SUNDRY CREDITORS, THE ASSESSEE CAME FORWARD TO DISCLOSE THE INCOME FOR TAXATION. BROADLY IT WAS CO NTENDED THAT IT WAS NOT A VOLUNTARY OR BONAFIDE DISCLOSURE, THEREFO RE, THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SURECHAND MITTAL (SUPRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS. FURTHER RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FO LLOWING DECISIONS :- 1. CALICUT TRADING CO.; 178 ITR 430 (KER) 2. SMT. CHANDRAKANTA; 205 ITR 607 3. CHIRAG MITTAL; 207 ITR 395 (MP) 4. HARPRASAD & CO. LTD.; 328 ITR 53 (DEL) 5. K.P. MADHUSUDAN; 251 ITR 99 (SC) 6. BANWARILAL AGRAWAL; 238 ITR 461 (SC) 7. ACIT VS. ALPA LABORATORIES (ITA NO. 487/IND/2012 ) 2.1 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY CO NTENDING THAT THERE IS NO DETECTION AS SUCH BY THE DEPARTMEN T AND MERELY INQUIRES WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. TO AV OID VEXED LITIGATION AND TO KEEP PEACE OF MIND, THE ASSESSEE SURRENDERED THE AMOUNT. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT LIABILILTY OF PE NALTY ARISES ONLY WHEN INACCURATE PARTICULARS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESS EE. SO FAR AS 4 FILING OF REVISED RETURN IS CONCERNED, IT WAS CONTE NDED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT SURRENDER WAS MADE BY THE ASSE SSEE ON 20.12.2010, THEREFORE, THE TIME FOR FILING THE REVI SED RETURN EXPIRED AS THE SAME COULD HAVE BEEN FILED UP TO 31. 10.2010. THE LEARNED COUNSEL RELIED UPON THE DECISION IN CIT VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON ENGG. FACTORY AND OTHERS; 243 CTR 407 (KARN. ); 288 ITR 149 (P&H) AND THE DECISION IN SURESHCHAND MITTAL; 2 51 ITR 9 (SC). IN REPLY, THE LEARNED SR. DR ASSERTED THAT I NQUIRES U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. IT WAS ALSO CLAIMED THAT CONFIRMATION FROM THE CONCERNED PARTIE S WAS SOUGHT AND THEN THE DIFFERENCE IN THE AMOUNT WAS ADDED. T HE CRUX OF REPLY IS THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT EXPLAIN THE DISC REPANCIES RATHER SURRENDERED THE INCOME AND NO APPEAL WAS FILED ON Q UANTUM ADDITION. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CIVIL CONTRACTOR, DECLARED INCOME OF RS.3,20,610/- IN HIS RETURN FILED ON 30.9.2008. SINCE THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY, NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS SERVED UPON THE ASS ESSEE. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE COPY OF AUDIT REPORT, PROOF OF INVESTMENT MADE UNDER CHAPTER VIA, ETC. THE 5 ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS. THEREAFTER, VARI OUS NOTICES WERE SENT TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE WRITTEN REPLY AND PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. FINALLY THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED TH E SAME WHICH WERE EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON VERIFIC ATION OF REPLY AND COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT, SUBMITTED BY THE ASSE SSEE, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN RS.88,62,190/- AS SUNDRY CREDITORS IN HIS BALANCE S HEET FROM 31 CREDITORS. THEREAFTER, NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO ALL 31 CREDITORS ASKING THEM TO PRODUCE THE COPY OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THEIR BOOKS. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES , ALL THE 31 CREDITORS PRODUCED THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THEIR BOOKS. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER EXAMINED SUCH ACCOUNT S AND NOTED CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES WHICH ARE SUMMARISED AS UNDER :- SR. NO. NAME OF CREDITORS CREDIT AMOUNT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN BALANCE SHEET ACTUAL AMOUNT AS PER CONFIRMATION RECEIVED FROM THE CREDITORS (DEBIT AMOUNT) DIFFERENCE OF COLUMN NO. 3 & 4 1 2 3 4 5 1 BAJAJ CORPORATION, INDORE 712521 NIL 712521 2 LIONS CHARITABLE SOCIETY, SENDHWA 2549538 NIL 2549538 3 S. VEERA SWAMI 575840 NIL 575840 4 ZAINUDDIN TRADERS, KHARGONE 709373 NIL 709373 5 STEEL HOME, INDORE 665260 15370 649890 6 6 MODI HARDWAR, ANJAD 315374 314374 1000 7 NARMADA AGENCIES,BHIKANGAON 115140 NIL 115140 8 RAJESH TRADERS, MHOW 50000 NIL 50000 9 SWASTIK TRADERS 38675 NIL 38675 10 PRADEEP ENGG. WORKS, BHIKANGAON 14511 14511 NIL TOTAL 57,46,232 3,44,255 54,01,977 THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED FICTITIOUS CREDITS IN HIS BOOKS, THEREF ORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE IN THE CREDIT A MOUNTS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE CREDIT AMOUNTS CONFIRMED BY THE CREDITORS (AS SUMMARISED IN THE AFORESAID TABLE). THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO ASKED AS TO WHY THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNT MAY NOT BE TREATED AS FICTITIOUS LIABILITY AND ADDED TO HIS IN COME. THE ASSESSEE WAS FURTHER ASKED TO PRODUCE CONFIRMATION OF CREDITORS, WHERE CONFIRMATION NOT RECEIVED FAILING WHICH THE C REDIT AMOUNT SHOWN AGAINST THEIR NAME MAY NOT BE ADDED TO THE TO TAL INCOME. IN COMPLIANCE WITH THIS OFFICE LETTER DATED 13.12.2 010 THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON 20.12.2010 WH EREIN HE SURRENDERED THE DIFFERENCE OF THE CREDITED AMOUNTS. THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO REPRODUCED HEREUNDER :- LWPUK I= ESA VKIDS }KJK MYYS[K FD;K X;K GS FD LA OH{KK DK;ZOKGH DS NKSJKU DZSFMVLZ DS LACA/K ESA TKS TKUDKJH VKIDS }KJK GKFLY DH XBZ MLESA 10 O;FDR;KSA DS [KKRKSA ESA :- 54]15]463@& DK FEYKU UG HA GKSRK GSA BL LACA/K ESA OLRQFLFKFR ;G GS FD GEKJS }KJK CSYSUL KHV ESA DZSF MVLZ DS :I ESA TKS JKFK NKKZ;H X;H GS OG LGH GSA MDR JKFK OKLRO ESA GESA NSUK FKH FDURQ MU 7 O;FDR;KSA US YSUK D;KS UGH CRK;K ;G GESA LI'V UGHA GKS JGK GSA BU DZSFMVLZ DK FEYKU DJOKUS DS FY, EQ>S VKSJ LE; PKFG, YSFDU 31 FN LECJ] 10 DKS MDR IZDJ.K DKS FUIVKUS DH VOF/K LEKIR GKS JGH GSA BLFY, VIUH CKR DKS LI'V DJUS DS FY, GESA IWJK LE; UGHA FEY IK JGK GSA ,SLH FLFKFR ESA ESA DKUWUH NKAO ISAP ESA UGHA IM+UK PKGRK GWW VKSJ MDR JKFK :-54]1 5]463@& DKS ESA PKYW O'KZ ESA V?KKSF'KR VU; VK; DS L=KSR DS :I ESA DJKJKSI.K GSRQ LEFIZR DJRK GWWA** ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE R EPLY OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THA T THE ASSESSEE INFLATED HIS LIABILITIES CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD SU NDRY CREDITORS AS THE ASSESSEE INVESTED HIS OWN UNACCOUNTED MONEY IN THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES BY CLAIMING FICTITIOUS LIABILIT Y IN ORDER TO TALLY THE BALANCE SHEET. ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE SURRENDE RED THE AMOUNT OF RS.54,15,463/- AS INCOME OF CURRENT YEAR BY ACCEPTING THE FICTITIOUS LIABILITY IN THE CASE OF 10 CREDITOR S. THE DIFFERENCE IN THE CASE OF PRADEEP ENGG. WORKS WAS FOUND TO BE NIL , THEREFORE, THE CREDIT BALANCE SHOWN AGAINST IT AMOUNTING TO RS .13,486/- WAS REDUCED FROM THE SURRENDERED AMOUNT AND THUS FI NALLY THE AMOUNT OF RS.54,01,977/- WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS, THE DIFFERENCE A S UNEXPLAINED CREDIT BALANCE WAS TREATED AS FICTITIOUS LIABILITY AND THUS PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 3.1 PENALTY SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 25.1.20 11 TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN REPLY. IN REPLY F ILED ON 3.2.2011 8 THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT SINCE THE ASSESS EE HAS VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF RS.54,15,263/- WAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION TO AVOID PROTRACTED LITIGA TION AND TO PURCHASE PEACE OF MIND, REQUESTED THE ASSESSING OFF ICER TO DROP THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THIS EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND CONVINCIN G AND THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT SINCE IT I S CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULAR OF INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS. 54,01,977/-, THEREFORE, THE PENAL PROVISION U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS CLEARLY ATTRACTED. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO PLACED RELIANCE UPON CERTAIN JUDICIAL DECISIONS WHI CH HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED AT PAGES 6 ONWARDS OF THE PENALTY ORDER. A MINIMUM PENALTY OF RS. 18,41,000/- WAS IMPOSED AGAINST THE MAXIMUM PENALTY OF RS. 55,22,361/-. 3.2 ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION FROM HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SURESHCHAND MITTAL (2000) 241 ITR 124 (MP), WHICH W AS LATER ON AFFIRMED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN 251 ITR 9 (SC ) DELETED THE PENALTY. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED AND IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 9 3.3 ON CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, ONE FACT IS CLEARLY OOZING OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE DELIBERATEL Y AND KNOWINGLY FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS IN THE FORM OF CRE ATING FICTITIOUS CREDIT LIABILITY TO THE TUNE OF RS.54,01,977/-. WH EN THE ASSESSEE WAS CORNERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HE SURRENDER ED THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT BY CLAIMING THAT SUCH SURRENDER IS MADE TO PURCHASE PEACE OF MIND AND TO AVOID PROTRACTED LITI GATION. WE FIND THAT SUCH SURRENDER WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE N OT SUO MOTO RATHER KNOWING FULLY WELL THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAD M ADE FULL INQUIRY ABOUT THE INFLATED/FICTITIOUS LIABILITY CLA IMED UNDER THE HEAD SUNDRY CREDITORS BY ISSUE OF NOTICES U/S 133 (6) OF THE ACT TO ALL SUCH CREDITORS. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT EVEN NO APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON QUANTUM ADDITIO N MEANING THEREBY THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED HIS GUILT. HOWEVER, W E ARE NOT INFLUENCED BY THIS OPTION OF THE ASSESSEE OF NOT FI LING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE QUANTUM ADDITION AS QUANTUM AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT AND HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE MERITS OF THE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3.4 IF THE LANGUAGE ENSHRINED UNDER SECTION 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT IS ANALYSED, FOR IMPOSING PENALTY EITHER TH ERE SHOULD BE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE P ARTICULARS 10 THEREOF. IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, IN OUR VIEW, FROM T HE FACTS NARRATED HEREINABOVE, THE ASSESSEE DELIBERATELY FUR NISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS IN THE FORM OF FICTITIOUS CR EDITS WITH CLEAR INTENTION TO EVADE TAX, THEREFORE, CLEARLY COMES WI THIN THE AMBIT OF SUB CLAUSE (C) OF SECTION 271(1) OF THE ACT. SO FAR AS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SURRENDER WAS MADE VOLUNTARY O R TO AVOID PROTRACTED LITIGATION OR TO BUY PEACE OF MIND IS CO NCERNED, THE SAME IS NOT SUBSTANTIATED WITH FACTS AND IT IS MERE LY AN AFTER- THOUGHT WITH THE ADVICE OF LEGAL LUMINARIES. IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE SUO MOTO MADE THE SURRENDER BEFOR E IT IS DETECTED BY THE DEPARTMENT, RATHER A DELIBERATE ATT EMPT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH INACCURATE PARTICUL ARS OF HIS INCOME. 3.5 NOW WE SHALL DISCUSS THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE RESPECTIVE COUNSEL. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE PLACED UPON THE DECISION FROM HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SURESHCHAND MITTAL (SUPRA) WHICH HAS ALSO B EEN RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). IN THAT CASE, THE FACT S, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT ORIGINALLY THE ASSESSEE SHOWED MEAGRE INCOME I N HIS RETURN. AN ACTION U/S 132 ALONG WITH NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS TAKEN BY THE DEPTT. AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE FILED REV ISED RETURN 11 SHOWING HIGHER INCOME. EVENTUALLY, THE ASSESSMENT O RDERS WERE PASSED AND THE RETURNS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WE RE ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSE SSEE CLAIMED THAT HE HAS OFFERED ADDITIONAL INCOME TO BUY PEACE OF MIND AND TO AVOID LITIGATION. PENALTY ORDERS WERE PASSED AND T HE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER BUT THE TRIBUNAL FOUND T HAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT DISCHARGED ITS BURDEN THAT THE A SSESSEE CONCEALED ITS INCOME AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) RESTED ITS CONCLUSION ON THE ACT OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER DONE BY THE ASSES SEE IN GOOD FAITH. IT WAS HELD THAT PENALTY COULD NOT BE LEVIED . ON APPEAL, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT ALSO HELD THAT NO PENALTY COULD BE LEVIED. THE DEPARTMENT PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPR EME COURT WHEREIN THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED. HOWEVER, IN THE P RESENT APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY REVISED RETUR N, KNOWING FULLY WELL, DELIBERATELY FILED INACCURATE PARTICULARS AND AFTER IT WAS DETECTED BY THE DEPTT., SURRENDERED THE AMOUNT AND DID NOT FILE ANY APPEAL ON QUANTUM ADDITION, THEREFORE, WITH UTM OST REGARD TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT AND ALSO FROM THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, WE ARE OF THE HU MBLE OPINION THAT THIS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT MAY NOT HELP THE A SSESSEE, BEING ON DIFFERENT FACTS, AS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE. ANOTHER 12 DECISION QUOTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS OF CIT VS. SLN T RADERS (2012) 243 CTR (KAR) 407 WHEREIN THERE WAS ADDITION FOR CA SH CREDIT. THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEDED FOR ACCEPTING THE ORDER O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH WAS BASED ON THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SECURE T HE CREDITOR, HE CONCEDED THE ADDITION. THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION T HAT THERE WAS NO INTENTION TO AVOID PAYMENT OF TAX WAS ACCEPTED B Y THE TRIBUNAL AND IN VIEW OF EXPLANATION 1(D) TO SECTION 271, IF THERE IS SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION, IT WAS HELD, THAT IT IS A LWAYS OPEN FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REFRAIN FROM IMPOSING ANY PENA LTY. HONBLE HIGH COURT ALSO OBSERVED THAT FOR SIMILAR ADDITIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN IMMEDIATELY PRECED ING ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97, NO PROCEEDINGS FOR INITIAT ION OF PENALTY WERE INITIATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. BY CONSID ERING ALL THESE FACTS, ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS CONFIRMED BY THE H ONBLE HIGH COURT. HOWEVER, IN THE INSTANT CASE BEFORE US, WE A RE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE DELIBERATELY FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME TO DEFRAUD THE REVENUE, THEREFORE, THE P ENALTY PROVISION IS CLEARLY ATTRACTED. ANOTHER DECISION QU OTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS FROM HONBLE PU NJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. AGRO CHEMICALS (INDIA ) (2007) 288 13 ITR 149 WHEREIN PENALTY WAS IMPOSED ON THE BASIS OF CASH CREDITS. THE PENALTY WAS DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED EXPLANATION IN SU PPORT OF GENUINENESS OF CASH CREDITS APPEARING IN THE NAME O F H. IN VIEW OF THIS FINDING OF FACT BY THE TRIBUNAL, THE HONBL E HIGH COURT UPHELD THE DELETION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) ESPECI ALLY WHEN THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND JUSTIFIED BY THE TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, THIS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT ALSO MAY NOT HELP THE ASSESSEE. 3.6 NOW WE SHALL DEAL WITH THE CASES RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED SENIOR DR. IN THE CASE OF UNION OF INDIA &ANR. VS. BANWARILAL AGRAWAL (SUPRA) WHEREIN RETURNS WERE FILED BELATEDL Y AFTER SEARCH AND SEIZURE, THE INCOME DISCLOSED WAS MUCH LESS THA N THE INCOME ASSESSED. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE IN PURSUANCE OF MUTUAL UNDERSTA NDING THAT NO PENALTY ACTION WOULD BE TAKEN AGAINST THE A SSESSEE. THE HONBLE APEX COURT SET ASIDE THE DECISION OF THE HO NBLE HIGH COURT AND THE TRIAL COURT WAS DIRECTED TO PROCEED W ITH THE CASE. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HARPRASAD & CO. LTD. (2010) 328 ITR 53 (DEL) THERE WAS BOGUS CLAIM TO DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION PAID TO DIRECTOR AND THE PERSON TO WHOM COMMISSION 14 WAS PAID WAS NOT THE DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY AT THE RELEVANT TIME. IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT THAT F INDINGS IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE RELEVANT AND THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL IN QUANTUM APPEAL THAT NO SERVICES WERE RE NDERED BY HER (DIRECTOR), THE PENALTY WAS HELD TO BE JUSTIFIE D. THIS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT FAVOURS THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. 3.7 WE FURTHER NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE DECLARED INCO ME OF RS.3,20,610/- IN ITS RETURN FILED ON 30.9.2008 AND NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 18.9.2009 WHIC H WAS DULY SERVED UPON THROUGH REGISTERED POST. ANOTHER LETTER WAS ISSUED ON 12.1.2010, 26.2.2010 BUT NONE ATTENDED. ANOTHER NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 22.3.2010 AND ANOTHER LET TER DATED 10.6.2010. STILL THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ATTEND. THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED ON 2.11.2010 AND FILED WRITTEN REPLY. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH DETAILS BUT THE ASSESSEE STILL DID NOT FILE THE REVISED RETURN. WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS CORNERED BY THE DEPARTMENT AFTER DETAILED INVESTIGATION AND WAS MAD E AWARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS IN TH E FORM OF FICTITIOUS CREDITS, THE ASSESSEE SURRENDERED THE AM OUNT AND EVEN DID NOT PREFER ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE QUANTUM ADDIT ION, THEREFORE, AT THE LATER STAGE TAKING A PLEA THAT SU RRENDER WAS 15 MADE TO BUY PEACE OR TO AVOID PROTRACTED LITIGATION , IS MERELY AN AFTER-THOUGHT AND MAY NOT HELP THE ASSESSEE. IT MI GHT HAVE BEEN A DIFFERENT CASE IF THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE OFFERED FOR TAXATION SUO MOTO BEFORE DETECTION BY THE DEPARTMENT THEN TH E INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE NEITHER FILED REVISED RETURN NOR EXPLAINED ITS BONAFIDE, THEREFORE, THE PENALTY PROV ISION IS CLEARLY ATTRACTED. IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. M/S ALPA LABORAT ORIES PVT. LTD.; ITA NO. 487/IND/2012 ORDER DATED 31.1.2013 OF THIS BENCH, ON IDENTICAL FACTS, A DETAILED DISCUSSION HAS BEEN MAD E, WHEREIN BOTH OF US ARE SIGNATORY TO THE ORDER, DISTINGUISHI NG VARIOUS DECISIONS LIKE RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS LIMITED (322 ITR 158) (SC); PRICE WATER HOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD. (CIVIL APPEAL N O. 6924/2004) FROM HONBLE APEX COURT, CIT VS. DHARAMPAL PREMCHAN D (320 ITR 579) (DEL) AND DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE . THE RELEVANT PORTION FROM THE SAME IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER :- 5.1 WE HAVE PERUSED THE AFORESAID ORDER FROM HONBLE APEX COURT. WE FIND THAT IN PARA 15 OF THE ORDER, AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 14.9.2012 WAS FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE TENDERING THAT THERE WERE AROUND 1000 EMPLOYEES, HAVING SEPARATE ACCOUNTS, PAYROLL ETC. A ND DUE TO ACQUISITION OF BUSINESS, THERE WAS CONFUSION IN PREPARING THE RETURN AS SOME OF THE MEMBERS WERE NO T HAVING APPROVED GRATUITY FUNDS UNLIKE OTHER EMPLOYE ES AND IN PARA 18, THE TAX AUDIT REPORT WAS FILED ALON G 16 WITH THE RETURN INDICATING ERROR IN THE COMPUTATION IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WHICH WAS EVEN NOT NOTICED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT. IN PARA 19, ANOTHER FACT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT EVEN IN TAX AUDIT REPORT, IT WA S SUGGESTED THAT THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. EVEN THE ASSESSEE FILED THE REVISED RETURN. IN VIEW OF THESE PECULIAR FACTS, THE HONBLE APEX COURT REACHE D TO A PARTICULAR CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS INADVERTENT AND BONA FIDE MISTAKE WITHOUT INTENDING TO CONCEAL ITS INCOME OR TO FURNISH INACCURATE PARTICULARS. HOWEVE R, IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, THE FACTS ARE ALTOGETHER DIFFER ENT BECAUSE INSPITE OF POINTING OUT BY THE AUDITOR OF T HE ASSESSEE HIMSELF CERTAIN GLARING MISTAKES, THE ASSE SSEE INTENTIONALLY AND DELIBERATELY AVOIDED THE SUGGESTI ONS OF THE AUDITOR AND EVEN DID NOT FILE THE REVISED RE TURN AFTER DETECTION BY THE DEPARTMENT. EVEN THE ASSESSE E FILED WRONG PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IT IS ALSO PERTI NENT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE ASSESSEE NEVER FILED ANY APPE AL AGAIN SUCH ADDITION FULLY KNOWING THAT THE DEDUCTIO NS CAN NEVER BE ALLOWED. THUS, IT WAS A DELIBERATE ATT EMPT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME. IN THE CASE DECIDED BY T HE HONBLE SUPREME COURT THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE CAME FORWARD TO FILE THE REVISED RETURN AND ASSESSMENT W AS FRAMED AT THE REVISED RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. FILING OF REVISED RETURN SUPPORTS THE BONA FIDE INT ENTION OF THE ASSESSEE OF NOT FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTIC ULARS OF INCOME. THEREFORE, WITH UTMOST REGARD TO THE DEC ISION FROM HONBLE APEX COURT, CLEAR FACTS ARE OOZING OUT THAT THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT APPEAL ARE DISTINGUISHABLE , CONSEQUENTLY, THIS DECISION MAY NOT HELP THE ASSESS EE. IT IS NOT A CASE OF MAKING INCORRECT/WRONG CLAIM RA THER THE ASSESSEE DELIBERATELY FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME AND IN THE ABSENCE OF DET ECTION FROM THE DEPARTMENT, THERE WAS ALL POSSIBILITIES TH AT SUCH CLAIM WOULD HAVE GONE UNNOTICED CAUSING UNDUE LOSS TO THE REVENUE. AT THE SAME TIME, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ESTABLISHED ITS BONA FIDE AT ANY STAGE. THE ASS ESSEE HAS DELIBERATELY FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS W ITH INTENTION TO CONCEAL ITS INCOME, THEREFORE, THE CON CLUSION 17 DRAWN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS REVERSED. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS, CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOWED. IDENTICALLY, IN THE CASE OF M/S MEGAPOWER TRANSMISS ION P. LTD. (ITA NO. 275/IND/2012) ORDER DATED 13.2.2013 THE IN DORE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E WHERE PENALTY WAS IMPOSED AFTER DISCREPANCIES WERE DETECT ED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE PENALTY WAS UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL. IDENTICALLY, IN THE CASE OF NISHANT P. SONI (ITA 162/IND/2012) T HE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED. IN ALL THESE CASES, BOT H OF US ARE SIGNATORY TO THE ORDER. 3.8 THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHILE CONCLUDING THE ISSUE D ID NOT APPRECIATE THE FACTS PROPERLY BY OBSERVING THAT TH E ASSESSEE, BEING A TECHNOCRAT, NOT WELL VERSED WITH THE ACCOUN TING AFFAIRS, HAD VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED THE INCOME IN RESPECT O F CREDITORS AND SUCH VOLUNTARY SURRENDER IS ACCEPTED AS SUCH BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH NO CHANGE IN SUCH AMOUNT IN ASSESSMENT, NO PENALTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSED. WE ARE NOT CO NVINCED WITH THIS FINDING BECAUSE ON DETECTION BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER, SUCH SURRENDER WAS MADE AND EVEN OTHERWISE, THE ASS ESSEE IS ADVISED BY INCOME-TAX EXPERTS RIGHT FROM FILING OF RETURN. EVEN OTHERWISE, IGNORANCE OF LAW IS NO EXCUSE AND IT IS NOT THE FIRST 18 TIME THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN. THE ASSESS EE IS DULY ASSISTED BY AUDITORS, CAS AND ADVOCATES AS IS EVIDE NT FROM ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF. THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT SUBSTANTIATED WITH FACTS. IT WAS NOT A SUO M OTO SURRENDER RATHER SUCH SURRENDER WAS MADE WHEN THE ASSESSING O FFICER AFTER DETAILED INVESTIGATION ISSUED NOTICES AND FOUND DIS CREPANCIES IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND FURTHER NOTICES U/ S 133(6) OF THE ACT WERE SENT TO THE CREDITORS AND THEN SUCH SU RRENDER WAS MADE. IF NO INVESTIGATION HAD BEEN MADE BY THE DEP ARTMENT, THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE GONE SCOT FREE CAUSING LOSS TO THE REVENUE. EVEN NO REVISED RETURN WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, T HEREFORE, WE ARE NOT CONVINCED WITH THIS FINDING IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. SO FAR AS THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS GETTING T IME BARRED AND THERE WAS NO TIME WITH THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE THE DIFFERENCE OF SUNDRY CREDITORS IS ALSO WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFICATI ON BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN IN SEPTEMBER, 2008 WHEREA S THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED IN DECEMBER, 2010 AND THE PEN ALTY ORDER WAS PASSED IN JUNE, 2011, THEREFORE, THERE WAS SUFF ICIENT TIME WITH THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE REVISED RETURN IF SO INTENDED. IN THE CASE OF SURESHCHAND MITTAL (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY T HE LEARNED 19 CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FILED THE REVISED RETURN WHICH WAS REGULARISED BY THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICE R DID NOT TAKE ANY OBJECTION. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE HO NBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AS WELL AS THE HONBLE AP EX COURT DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BUT IN THE PRESEN T APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE NEITHER FILED REVISED RETURN NOR MADE SUO MOTO SURRENDER AND EVEN THE RETURN WAS NOT REGULARISED. FALSE RESULT WILL BE PRODUCED BY THE FALSITY OF ONE OR MORE OF T HE CONSTITUENT ITEMS IN THE RETURN. THE WORDS INACCURATE PARTICUL ARS WOULD COVER FALSITY IN THE FINAL FIGURES AS ALSO THE CONS TITUENT ELEMENTS OR ITEMS. THEY SIMPLY WOULD MEAN INACCURATE IN SOME SPECIFIC OR DEFINITE RESPECT WHETHER IN THE CONSTITUENT OR SUBO RDINATE ITEMS OF INCOME OR THE END RESULT. KNOWINGLY FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH CREDITORS CLEARLY INDICATIVE OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. EVEN IT IS NOT A CASE OF BONAFIDE MISTAKE, WHERE RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED TO TH E ASSESSEE UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF DECISIONS FROM HONBLE JURISD ICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. SKYLINE AUTO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMI TED (2004) 271 ITR 335. A DEFINITE FINDING OF CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS WAS RECORDED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING 20 OFFICER, AFTER HAVING DETAILED INVESTIGATION WHICH HAS NOT BEEN FOUND UNTRUE. 3.9 DURING HEARING THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE WAS ASKED BY THE BENCH REGARDING DIFFERENCE IN MAKI NG DISCLOSURE THROUGH REVISED RETURN VIS-A-VIS THROUGH SEPARATE LETTER. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON 2.9.2013 IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN PLEADED THAT A PERSON WHO HAS FUR NISHED A RETURN EITHER U/S 139(1) OR U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT C AN FURNISH THE REVISED RETURN ONLY IF TO FILING OF SUCH RETURN ANY OMISSION IS DISCOVERED OR ANY WRONG STATEMENT THEREIN MEANING T HEREBY DISCOVERS MEANS ANY INFORMATION WHICH COMES TO TH E KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSEE LATER ON. IT WAS ALSO PL EADED THAT ONCE A BONAFIDE SURRENDER IS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR PU RCHASING PEACE AND TO AVOID PROTRACTED LITIGATION THEN IT MA KES NO DIFFERENCE THAT IF SUCH SURRENDER IS MADE THROUGH A LETTER, FILED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND NOT THROUGH A REV ISED RETURN. WE ARE NOT CONVINCED WITH THIS SUBMISSION OF THE AS SESSEE BECAUSE AS PER SECTION 139(5) OF THE ACT, IF ANY PE RSON, HAVING FURNISHED A RETURN UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OR IN PURS UANCE TO A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142, DISCOVERS ANY 21 OMISSION OR ANY WRONG STATEMENT THEREIN, HE MAY FUR NISH A REVISED RETURN AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR OR BEFORE THE C OMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT WHICHEVER IS EARLIER, MEANING THEREBY FI LING OF REVISED RETURN IS A REQUIREMENT OF THE ACT BEFORE THE EXPIR Y OF TIME. WE NOTE THAT, AS DISCUSSED EARLIER THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN ON 30.9.2008 AND SINCE THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUT INY NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 18.9.2009. ANOTHER LETTER WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 12.1.2010 ASKI NG THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE COPY OF AUDIT REPORT, PROOF OF INVESTMENT, ETC. WITHIN 7 DAYS. ANOTHER NOTICE U/S 142(1) ALONG WIT H QUESTIONNAIRE WAS ISSUED ON 26 TH FEBRUARY, 2010 WITH A DIRECTION TO PRODUCE WRITTEN REPLY ON THE POINTS MENTIONED TH EREIN. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR. THEREAFTER, ANOTHER NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 22.3.2010 FIXING THE HEARING FOR 7.4.2010 TO FIL E THE WRITTEN REPLY AND TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. ON PERUSAL OF REPLY ALONGWITH AUDIT REPORT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, NOTIC ES U/S 133(6) WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ASKING THEM TO PRODUCE COPY OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THEIR BOOKS TO VERIFY TH E CREDIT AMOUNTS SHOWN AGAINST THEIR NAMES. ON RECEIPT OF SU CH NOTICES, 22 DISCREPANCIES WERE NOTICED AND WHEN IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING FICTITIOUS CLAIM OF THE C REDITORS, THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 13.12.2010 WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE AND ALSO AS TO WHY THE UNEXPLAINED DIFFE RENCE AMOUNT MAY NOT BE TREATED AS FICTITIOUS LIABILITY. THEREAF TER, THE ASSESSEE SURRENDERED ON BEING FOUND CORNERED BY THE DEPARTME NT, THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THER E WAS NO MENS REA OR INACCURATE PARTICULARS WERE NOT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS CLEARLY WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFICATION. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED ONE DECISION FROM HONBLE PUNJAB & HARIYANA HIGH COURT IN RAJNISH NATH AGRAWAL (2008) 219 CTR (P&H) 590. IN THAT CAS E PAYMENTS OF TRANSPORT CHARGES WERE DIRECTLY MADE BY THE SUPP LIERS AND NOT BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO QUESTION O F FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, THEREFORE, THE RA TIO LAID DOWN IN THIS CASE IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRE SENT APPEAL. LIKEWISE, IN THE THIRD MEMBER DECISION IN ADDL. CI T VS. PREMCHAND GARG (2009) 24 DTR 519 THERE WERE NRI GIF TS WHICH WERE SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT TOO IN RESPON SE TO A GENERALLY QUERY AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD RECE IVED ANY GIFT. THE ASSESSEE SURRENDERED SUBJECT TO NO PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT 23 AND THERE WAS NO MATERIAL IN POSSESSION WITH THE AS SESSING OFFICER WITH REGARD TO NRI GIFT AND THE SAME WERE S HOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE REGULAR RETURN. NOTHING WAS DETECTE D EITHER. THEREFORE, UNDER THE FACTS NARRATED ABOVE THIS JUDI CIAL PRONOUNCEMENT MAY NOT HELP THE ASSESSEE. LIKEWISE, IN THE CASE OF ALKA LUTHRA VS. ACIT (2010) 37 SOT 282 (DEL) THE ASSESSEE TOOK ACCOMMODATION ENTRY FROM V.K. & M.K.M. THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SHOWED INTEREST INCOME IN THE RETURN. IT WAS HELD THAT INCOME CANNOT BE REGARDED TO BE UNDISCLOSED. SINCE THE PARTICULARS OF THE GIFT WERE DULY DISCLOSED, IN THAT SITUATION A PARTICULAR DECISION WAS ARRIVED AT. THEREFORE, THIS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT DOES NOT HELP THE ASSES SEE. IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, OBVIOUSLY THE SURRENDER WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE KNOWING FULLY WELL THAT FICTITIOUS CREDITS HAVE BEEN SHOWN IN THE FORM OF SUNDRY CREDITORS AND AT THE SA ME TIME THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN CORNERED BY THE DEPARTMENT AFTER DETAILED INVESTIGATION, IN THAT SITUATION THE ASSESSEE MADE SURRENDER, THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW, IT IS CLEARLY A CASE OF FU RNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME SIMPLY TO DEFRAUD THE REVENUE, CONSEQUENTLY, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) A RE CLEARLY 24 ATTRACTED. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO JUSTIFICATION IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DELETING THE PENALTY IMPOSED FOR SUCH CONCEALMENT OF INCOME/FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICU LARS OF SUCH INCOME. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS REVERSED . THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, THEREFORE, IS ALLOWED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 3.9.2013. SD SD (R.C.SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL ME MBER DATED: 3.9.2013 COPY TO: APPELLANT, RESPONDENT, CIT, CIT(A), DR, GU ARD FILE DN/-2930.8/ 229