Shri Chandresh Roshnalal Jain, Godhra V. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchmahal Circle, Godhra

ITA 1272/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5964 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 28-02-2020
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 25-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Revised return
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 142(1); 139(5); 251; 143(2); 139(4); 153C; 131; 69

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 1272/AHD/2017 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2011 - 2012 SHRI CHANDRESH ROSHANLAL JAIN , B - 1, CENTRE POINT , NR. S.T. STAND , GODHRA . PAN : ACGPJ4712J VS. A.C.I.T. , PANCHMAHAL CIRCLE , GODHRA . (APPLICANT) ( RESPON D ENT ) ASSESSEE BY : MS URVASHI SHODHAN , A.R REVENUE BY : SHRI VIDHYUT TRIVEDI , SR.D. R / DATE OF HEARING : 31 / 01 / 2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 06 / 02 /2020 / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE A GAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 4, VADODARA , DATED 20/03/2017 ( IN SHORT LD.CIT (A) ) ARISI NG IN THE MATTER OF PENALTY ORDER PASSED UNDER S.271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( HERE - IN - AFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') DT.15 / 03 /2016 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 20 12 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ITA NO.1272/AHD/2017 ASSTT. YEAR 2011 - 12 2 1. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE PROTECTIVE ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT BY THE LD.A.O. WHO HAS COMPUTED THE INCOME AT RS. 56,01,6107/ - AS AGAINST INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.1,610/ - . 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 56,00,000/ - BY TREATING THE INVESTMENT OF RS. 25,00,000/ - IN SHARES OF PRADIP OVERSEAS LTD AND RS. 31,00,000/ - IN SHARES OF PRADIP ENTERPRISE LTD AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN - CONFIRMING INTEREST CHARGED U/S. 234 B AND 234 C OF THE ACT. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES FOR LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. 2. THE ONLY ISSUED RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE GROUND NO. 1 TO 3 IS THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS. 22,94,009/ - UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE INCOME OFFERED IN THE REVISED COMPUTATION HAS BEEN ACCEPTED . 3. THE FACT IN THE BRIEF IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVID UAL WORKING AS PROPERTY DEALER/ BR OKER AND INVESTOR IN PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION DECLARED INCOME OF RS. 12,12,4 00/ - ONLY . THE RETURN OF THE ASSESSEE SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED UPON THE ASSESSEE. S UBSEQUENTLY THE QUESTIONNAIRE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED WITH RESPECT TO CASH PAYMENT ABOVE RS. 20000 AND EXPENSES INCURRED FOR EARNING AGRICULTURAL INCOME. HOWEVER DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING THE ASSESSEE VOLUNTARY FILED THE REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME BY OFFERING AN ADDI TIONAL INCOME OF RS. 76,46,699/ - ONLY . THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THERE WAS THE SEARCH OPERATION AT THE PREMISES OF THIRD PARTY NAMELY DHANJIMAMA GROUP WHERE SOME INCRIMINATING MATERIAL S RELATED TO LAND DEAL WERE FOUND WHICH IS RELATED TO HIM. HENCE IN ORDER TO BUY PEACE WITH DEPARTMENT HE IS OFFERING THE ADDITIONAL INCOME. THE A O ACCEPTED ADDITIONAL INCOME AND ADDED THE SAME TO TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO FURTHER INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) ON THE SA ME FOR FILING IN ACCURATE PARTICULAR OF INCOME AND CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. ITA NO.1272/AHD/2017 ASSTT. YEAR 2011 - 12 3 3.1 DURING THE PENALTY P ROCEEDING S THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS NOT CONCEALED OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULAR OF INCOME AS HE HAS VOLUNTARY OFFERED ADDITIONAL INCOME WITHOUT ANY FINDING FROM THE AO IN THIS REGARD. THEREFORE NO PENALTY SHOULD BE WARRANTED ON VOLUNTARY ADM ISSION. THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION RELIED ON VARIOUS JUDGMENT OF SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURTS WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 4. HOWEVER THE AO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED ADDITIONAL INCOME BY FILING R EVISED COMPUTATION THOUGH HE HAD AMPLE TIME TO FILE REVISED RETURN FROM THE DATE OF SEARCH CONDUCTED AT DHANJIMAMA GROUP. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE OFFERED INCOME ONLY AFTER SEARCH CONDUCTED AND WHEN HE WAS SUMMONED UNDER SECTION 131(1) OF THE ACT. HAD THE SEARCH NOT BEEN CONDUCTED THE INCOME SHOULD HAVE BEEN ESCAPED FROM LEVY OF TAX. THEREFORE IT PROVE D THAT THE ASSESSEE DELIBERATELY NOT DISCLOSED THE SAME WHILE FILING ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME AND MERE FILLING OF REVISED COMPUTATION AT ASSESSMENT STAGE WILL NOT DEBAR ASSESSEE FROM LEVY OF PE NALTY. ACCORDINGLY THE A O IMPOSED PENALTY OF RS. 22,94,009/ - BEING 100% OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (A). 5. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (A) SUBMITTED THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE AO TH AT THE INCOME WAS OFFERED TO TAX ONLY AFTER SUMMON U/S 131(1) IS FACTUALLY WRONG. AS THE SUMMON U/S 131 WAS ISSUED TO HIM AS WITNESS IN THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED AT DHANJIMAMA GROUP . HE HAS VOLUNTARY WISHED TO OFFER INCOME BEFORE INVESTIGATING AUTHO RITY. THE INCOME WAS NEITHER COMPUTED NOR ALLEGED BY THE INVESTIGATING AUTHORITY. THOUGH HE FAILED TO FILE REVISE RETURN DUE NON AVAILABILITY OF COMPLETE DETAIL AS HE WAS COMPLETELY DEPEND UPON DHANJIMAMA GROUP. A FTER RECEIVING THE DETAIL S HE COMPUTED THE INCOME AND OFFERED AT ASSESSMENT STAGE EVEN BEFORE ANY FINDING FROM THE AO. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO S CONTENTION THAT IF SEARCH W OULD HAVE NOT BEEN CONDUCTED THE INCOME SHOULD HAVE ESCAPED IS ALSO NOT CORRECT. AS THERE WA S NO T ANY INQUIR Y ITA NO.1272/AHD/2017 ASSTT. YEAR 2011 - 12 4 CONDUCTED ON HIM WI TH RESPECT TO ADDITIONAL INCOME, N O QUESTION WAS RAISED BY INVESTIGATION TEAM ALSO . AS SUCH, THERE WAS NO ANY INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH THE AO IN THIS REGARD. THE INCOME WAS VOLUNTARY OFFERED. 6. HOWEVER THE LEARNED CIT (A) DISAGREE D WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT THE ADDITIONAL INCOME WAS ONLY OFFERED AFTER SEARCH CONDUCTED AT DHANJIMAMA GROUP AND INCRIMINATION MATERIAL RELATED TO ASSESSEE WAS FOUND. ACCORDINGLY THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. THE LEARNED AR BEFORE US FILED A PAPER BOOK RUNNING FR OM PAGES 1 TO 45 AND SUBMITTED AS FOLLOWS: I. AO HAS LEVIED PENALTY WITHOUT MENTIONING ANY SPECIFIC CHARGE. AS SUCH AO IN PENALTY {NOTICE HAS LEVIED BOTH THE CHARGES. IN THE PENALTY ORDER ON PAGE 2 AO NOTES THAT NOTICE WAS ISSUED FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WHEREAS ON PAGE 10 AO HO LDS APPELLANT LIABLE TO PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME WHILE IN PARA 10 ON PAGE 11 THERE IS NO CHARGE SPECIFIED BY AO WHILE DRAWING THE CONCLUSION. HON'BLE COURTS HAVE HELD THAT PENALTY CANNOT BE IMPOSED WITHOUT MENTIONING SPECIFIC CHARGE. 1. NEW SORA THIA ENGINEERING 282 ITR 642 (GUJ) 2. MANU ENGINEERING 122 ITR 306 (GUJ) 3. SNITA TRANSPORT PVT LTD 42 TAXMANN.COM 54 (GUJ) FOLLOWED IN PLETHORA OF CASES BY HON'BLE ITAT (AHD) 1. HATISH PRABHUDAS CHAUDHARY ITA # 3557/A/2016 [P/B PG 29 - 36] 2. USHABEN ATULBHAI SHAH ITA # 197/A/2017 [P/B PAG 37 - 45] II. APPELLANT MAKES FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS ON MERITS: APPELLANT IS AN INVESTOR, DEALER & BROKER IN PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS. RECEIVING INFORMATION OF SEARCH ACTION ON DHANJIMAMA GROUP, SINCE APPELLANT HAD DEALINGS WITH THE GROUP, AS ABUNDANT CAUTION VOLUNTARILY OFFERED ADDITIONAL INCOME THOUGH NEITHER INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AT SEARCHED PREMISES NOR ANY NOTICE IS SERVED U/S 153C OF THE AC T ON THE APPELLANT. APPELLANT WAS SERVED NOTICE U/S 131(1A) TO APPEAR AS A WITNESS ONLY (P/B PG 27) AO ASSESSED ADDITIONAL INCOME ACCEPTING EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT ANY FURTHER INQUIRY RESULTING INTO ADDITION. ITA NO.1272/AHD/2017 ASSTT. YEAR 2011 - 12 5 AO FURTHER RELIED UPON JUDGMENT OF GOETZ INDIA THAT APPELLANT IS BARRED FROM MAKING ANY CLAIM WITHOUT FILING REVISED RETURN WHICH IS WITH REFERENCE TO CLAIM OF DEDUCTION WHEREAS IN APPELLANT'S CASE ADDITIONAL INCOME IS OFFERED. LD. CIT (A) DISMISSES APPEAL RELYING ON JUDGMENT OF MAK DATA P. LTD. (SC) ON MISTAKEN BELIEF THAT APPELLANT'S FACTS ARE IDENTICAL TO APEX COURT JUDGMENT. LD.CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT NO SPECIFIC QUERY WITH RESPECT TO ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL PERTAINING TO THE APPELLANT FOUND AT SEARCHED PREMISES WAS RAISED BY AO. APPELLANT IS NOT EXIGIBLE TO LEVY OF PENALTY ON SUO MOTO DECLARATION OF ADDITIONAL INCOME TO BUY PEACE AND TO AVOID LENGTHY LITIGATIONS AS HELD IN 1. SURESH CHAND MITTAL 251 ITR 9 (SC) 2. DILIP N SHROFF 291 ITR 519 (SC) 3. T. ASHOK PAI 292 ITR 11(SC) 4. MANJUNATH COTTON 359 ITR 565 (KAR ) (DISTINGUISHING MAK DATA) 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE IMPUGNED INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED AT M/S DHANJIMAMA GROUP. HAD THERE NOT BEEN A SEARCH, THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE ESCAPED FROM THE ASSESSMENT. THUS, THE ASSESSEE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 9. SIMILARLY, THERE WAS A DIRECT QUESTION RAISED BY THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ABOUT THE REASONS WHICH HAS AFFECTED THE INCOME. THE LEARNED DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE RELATES TO THE FACT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED PARTI CULARS OF INCOME FOR RS. 76,46,698/ - WHICH WAS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED HIS INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS. 76,46,698/ - IN THE RETURN OF INCOME BUT THE SAME WAS OFFERED TO TAX BY WAY OF FILING THE REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE INCOME DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED AS IT IS BY THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ITA NO.1272/AHD/2017 ASSTT. YEAR 2011 - 12 6 10.1 UNDISPUTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 1 CRORES APPROXIMATELY FOR HIS FAMILY IN THE STATEMENT FURNISHED UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT IN CONNECTION WITH SEARCH PROCEEDINGS AT M/S DHANJIMAMA GROUP WHICH WAS CONDUCTED DATED 30 TH JULY 2012. AS SUCH, THE ASSESSEE WAS ISSUED A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 131(1A) OF THE ACT IN CONNECTION WITH THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS AT M/S DHANJIMAMA GROUP WHEREIN THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.1 CRORES APPROXIMATELY WAS ACCEPTED FOR THE ENTIRE FAMILY OF THE A SSESSEE. A SUM OF RS. 76,46,698/ - OUT OF THE TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.1 CRORES APPROXIMATELY PERTAINED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 10.2 THE MAIN THRUSTS OF THE REVENUE ARE TWOFOLD FOR HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AS DETAILED UNDER: I. THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED THE I MPUGNED INCOME AS A RESULT OF SEARCH AT M/S DHANJIMAMA GROUP WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON AS WITNESS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 131(1A) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE WHILE FURNISHING THE STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT HAS ADMITTED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. THUS, THE R EVENUE HE LD THAT HAD THERE NOT BEEN ANY SEARCH AT M/S DHANJIMAMA GROUP, THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT HAVE DISCLOSED THE IMPUGNED INCOME. II. THE A SSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY REVISE RETURN OF INCOME DISCLOSING THE INCOME ADMITTED IN THE STATEMENT FURNISHED UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT DESPITE THERE WAS SUFFICIENT TIME AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. 10.3 THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO PROCEEDING INITIATED UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SEARCH CONDUCTED AT M/S DHANJIMAMA GROUP. NON - INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT ESTABLISHES THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SUCH QUA THE ASSESSEE. THUS IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT FOUND DURING THE SEARCH PROCE EDINGS AT M/S DHANJIMAMA ITA NO.1272/AHD/2017 ASSTT. YEAR 2011 - 12 7 GROUP SUGGESTING UNDISCLOSED INCOME, IT IS TRANSPIRED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED THE IMPUGNED INCOME IN HIS HANDS VOLUNTARILY IN THE STATEMENT FURNISHED UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT. 10.4 IT IS ALSO EQUALLY IMPORTANT TO NOTE T HAT THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION BY THE INVESTIGATION OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX BARODA WHO RECORDED THE STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT OF THE ASSESSEE IN CONNECTION WITH THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS AT M/S DHANJIMAMA GROUP ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS DISCLOSED SUCH INCOME WHICH WAS NOT OFFERED IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN. WE ARE HOLDING SO BASED ON THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS THIS FACT /INFORMATION WAS NOT EMANATING FROM THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS. 10.5 IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THERE WAS QUESTIONNAIRE ISSUED BY THE AO HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECT ION 142(1) OF THE ACT WHICH WERE FILED BEFORE US. BUT, IN NONE OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE THE QUESTION REGARDING THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE STATEMENT FURN ISHED UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT WAS MADE. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE NOT IMPRESSED WITH THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED DR THAT THERE WAS A QUESTION RAISED ABOUT THE REASONS WHICH HAS AFFECTED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR VIEW, SUCH QUESTION RAISED BY THE AO IS A GENERAL QUESTION AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED BY HIM IN THE STATEMENT FURNISHED UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY WE CAN SAFELY ASSUME THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE IMPUGNED INCOME VOLUNTARILY PRIOR TO THE DETECTION BY THE I NCOME T AX O FFICE. 10.6 WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME DATED 30 - 03 - 2012 WHICH IS BELATED INCOME TAX RETURN UNDER SECTION 139(4) OF THE ACT. IT IS THE SETTLED LAW THAT THE BELATED RETURN CANNOT BE R EVISED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 139(5) OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE HOLD THAT THERE WAS NO POSSIBILITY FOR THE ASSESSEE TO REVISE THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD NO OPTION EXCEPT TO REVISE T HE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. ITA NO.1272/AHD/2017 ASSTT. YEAR 2011 - 12 8 10.7 TAKING UP THE MATTER FURTHER, WE NOTE THAT THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE H ON BLE APEX C OURT IN THE CASE OF MAK DATA (P) LTD VS. CIT REPORTED IN 358 ITR 593 , IN OUR HUMBLE OPINION ARE FACTUALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE PRESENT F ACTS OF THE CASE. IN THAT CASE THERE WERE MANY DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS WHICH WERE INCRIMINATING IN NATURE. THEREAFTER A SPECIFIC QUERY WAS RAISED BY THE AO WITH RESPECT TO SUCH INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. THUS, THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO SUCH SPECIFIC QUERY SURRENDERED INCOME OF RS. 40.74 LACS. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE THERE WAS NO ANY IN CRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE DISCOVERED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT M/S DHANJIMAMA GROUP BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY, THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC QUERY RAISED BY THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS REGARDING THE INCOME ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE STATEMENT FURNISHED UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE SUO MOTO DISCLOSURE OF INCOME AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. HENCE, THE PENALTY IN THE INSTANT CASE CANNOT BE ATTRACTED UNDER TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT IN THE PRESENT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. THUS THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 11. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 06 /02 / 2020 AT AHMEDABAD. - SD - - SD - (MAHAVIR PRASAD ) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (TRUE COPY ) ) A HMEDABAD; DATED 06 / 02 /2020 MANISH