V. Harikrishnan (HUF), Trichy V. ACIT, Trichy

ITA 2389/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5147 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 04-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 18-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RU GEORGE
• Assessee Lawyers: T BANUSEKAR
• Keywords: Gift; Revised return
• Section: 148; 263

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !'# ! , % !& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2450/CHNY/2016 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SHRI S. ASHOK KUMAR, NO.425, BIG BAZAAR STREET, TRICHY 620 008. PAN : AAFPA 7547 R V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE II, TRICHY. (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NO.2451/CHNY/2016 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SHRI S. ASHOK KUMAR (HUF), NO.37, CHINNA CHETTY STREET, TRICHY 620 008. PAN : AADHS 5118 N V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE II, TRICHY. (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NO.2452/CHNY/2016 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SMT. A. GEETHA, NO.37, CHINNA CHETTY STREET, TRICHY 620 008. PAN : AARPG 6847 R V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE II, TRICHY. (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) 2 I.T.A. NOS.2450 TO 2452/CHNY/16 I.T.A. NOS.2386 TO 2401/CHNY/16 ./ ITA NO.2386/CHNY/2016 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SHRI V. DAMOTHARAN (HUF), NO.60, NADU GUJILI STREET, TRICHY 620 008. PAN : AAFHD 6579 L V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE II, TRICHY. (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NO.2387/CHNY/2016 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SHRI G. PRASANNA, NO.22, CHINNA CHETTY STREET, TRICHY 610 008. PAN : AIPPP 7409 R V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE II, TRICHY. (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NO.2388/CHNY/2016 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SHRI V. RAMESH (HUF), NO.49, BIG CHETTY STREET, TRICHY 620 008. PAN : AALHR 6710 B V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE II, TRICHY. (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NO.2389/CHNY/2016 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SHRI V. HARIKRISHNAN (HUF), NO.49, BIG CHETTY STREET, TRICHY 620 008. PAN : AADHH 3040 Q V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE II, TRICHY. (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) 3 I.T.A. NOS.2450 TO 2452/CHNY/16 I.T.A. NOS.2386 TO 2401/CHNY/16 ./ ITA NO.2390/CHNY/2016 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SMT. G. ANANTHI, NO.22, CHINNA CHETTY STREET, TRICHY 620 008. PAN : AANPG 0636 P V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE II, TRICHY. (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NO.2391/CHNY/2016 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SHRI V. HARIKRISHNAN, NO.49, BIG CHETTY STREET, TRICHY 620 008. PAN : ABCPH 2018 L V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE II, TRICHY. (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NO.2392/CHNY/2016 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SMT. H. PRADEEPA, NO.49, BIG CHETTY STREET, TRICHY 620 008. PAN : BBOPP 8159 D V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE II, TRICHY. (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NO.2393/CHNY/2016 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SMT. S. KAMALA, NO.37, CHINNA CHETTY STREET, TRICHY 620 008. PAN : AAFPK 5757 M V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE II, TRICHY. (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) 4 I.T.A. NOS.2450 TO 2452/CHNY/16 I.T.A. NOS.2386 TO 2401/CHNY/16 ./ ITA NO.2394/CHNY/2016 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SHRI V. DAMOTHARAN, NO.49, BIG CHETTY STREET, TRICHY 620 008. PAN : ACMPD 1188 Q V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE II, TRICHY. (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NO.2395/CHNY/2016 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SMT. R. MAHESWARI, NO.49, BIG CHETTY STREET, TRICHY 620 008. PAN : AFOPM 4950 N V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE II, TRICHY. (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NO.2396/CHNY/2016 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SMT. P. SARANYA, NO.22, CHINNA CHETTY STREET, TRICHY 620 008. PAN : CCSPS 6887 B V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE II, TRICHY. (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NO.2397/CHNY/2016 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SMT. V. KAMALAVENI, L/H SHRI N. VISHWANATHAN, NO.425, BIG BAZAAR TRICHY 620 008. PAN : AAEPV 0055 E V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE II, TRICHY. (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) 5 I.T.A. NOS.2450 TO 2452/CHNY/16 I.T.A. NOS.2386 TO 2401/CHNY/16 ./ ITA NO.2398/CHNY/2016 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SHRI V. RAMESH, NO.49, BIG CHETTY STREET, TRICHY 620 008. PAN : AAGPR 5292 K V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE II, TRICHY. (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NO.2399/CHNY/2016 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SHRI N. VISHWANATHAN, NO.425, BIG BAZAAR, TRICHY 620 008. PAN : AADPV 8707 E V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE II, TRICHY. (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NO.2400/CHNY/2016 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SHRI S. GANAPATHY, NO.22, CHINNA CHETTY STREET, TRICHY 620 008. PAN : AAIPG 8991 Q V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE II, TRICHY. (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NO.2401/CHNY/2016 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SHRI G. PRASANNA (HUF), NO.22, CHINNA CHETTY STREET, TRICHY 620 008. PAN : V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE II, TRICHY. (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) 6 I.T.A. NOS.2450 TO 2452/CHNY/16 I.T.A. NOS.2386 TO 2401/CHNY/16 +, / 0 / APPELLANTS BY : SH. T. BANUSEKAR, CA -.+, / 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SMT. RUBY GEORGE, CIT 1 / 2% / DATE OF HEARING : 10.04.2018 3') / 2% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.05.2018 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: ALL THE APPEALS OF THE INDEPENDENT ASSESSEES ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-II, CHENNAI, DATED 14.11.2014, REVISING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DROPPING THE PENALTY PROCEEDING I NITIATED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN S HORT 'THE ACT'). SINCE COMMON ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IN ALL THESE APPEALS, WE HEARD THESE APPEALS TOGETHER AND DISPOSING OF TH E SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. ALL THE ASSESSEES FILED THEIR RESPECTIVE APPEALS BELATEDLY. THERE WAS A DELAY OF 570 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEES IN I.T.A. NOS.2450 TO 2452/CHNY/2016 AND IN THE CASE OF OTHER ASSESSEES, THERE WAS A DELAY OF 565 DAYS. TH E ASSESSEES HAVE FILED PETITIONS FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEES AND THE LD. D.R. WE FIND THAT 7 I.T.A. NOS.2450 TO 2452/CHNY/16 I.T.A. NOS.2386 TO 2401/CHNY/16 THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEA LS BEFORE THE STIPULATED TIME. THEREFORE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY A ND ADMIT THE APPEALS. 3. SH. T. BANUSEKAR, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEES, SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH OPERATION IN THE CASE OF AMN JEWELLERS PVT. LTD. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENT ATIVE, IT WAS FOUND BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES THAT THE ASSESSEES SOLD JEWELLERY TO M/S AMN JEWELLERS PVT. LTD. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION. THE ASSESSEES COULD NOT FURNISH SOURCE FOR THE ACQUISIT ION OF JEWELLERY. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE EXPLANATIO N OF THE ASSESSEES THAT THESE WERE RECEIVED BY THEM DURING T HE COURSE OF THEIR MARRIAGE FROM THE RESPECTIVE PARENTS AND RELA TIVES, WAS REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSMEN TS WERE COMPLETED ACCORDINGLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITI ATED PENALTY PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 4. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING O FFICER DURING THE PENALTY PROCEEDING THAT THE GOLD JEWELLERY SOLD TO M/S AMN JEWELLERS PVT. LTD. WAS ACQUIRED BY WAY OF GIFTS FR OM RELATIVES AND 8 I.T.A. NOS.2450 TO 2452/CHNY/16 I.T.A. NOS.2386 TO 2401/CHNY/16 PARENTS DURING THE MARRIAGE AND OTHER FUNCTIONS OVE R THE YEAR. THE ASSESSEES ALSO FILED REVISED RETURN BEFORE INITIATI NG PENALTY PROCEEDING DISCLOSING ALL THE JEWELLERY AND OFFERED THE SAME FOR TAXATION. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE REVISED RETURNS FILED BY ALL THE ASSESSEES WERE ACCEPTED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER AND NO ADDITION WAS MADE. IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF INDORE B ENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN SHRI RADHEY SHYAM SARDA AND OTHERS V. A CIT 2012 (12 TMI 320) AND THE JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT IN CIT V. S URESH CHANDRA MITTAL (2001) 251 ITR 9, FOUND THAT THIS IS NOT A F IT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY. ACCORDINGLY, HE DROPPED THE PENALTY PROCE EDING. 5. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER IN THE GUISE O F EXERCISING HIS REVISIONAL JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE AC T, FOUND THAT DROPPING THE PENALTY PROCEEDING INITIATED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVEN UE. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AN AUTHORITY UNDER THE INCOME- TAX ACT, WHO INITIATES PENALTY PROCEEDING, IS NOT O BLIGED TO LEVY PENALTY WHEN HE IS SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION O F THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF PENALTY PROCEEDING. REFERRING TO SEC TION 271(1)(C) OF 9 I.T.A. NOS.2450 TO 2452/CHNY/16 I.T.A. NOS.2386 TO 2401/CHNY/16 THE ACT, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY LEVY PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF ANY PART OF INC OME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEES ADMITTED THEIR ENTIRE INCOME IN THE REVIS ED RETURN AND THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. MOREOVER, ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEES AND FOUND THAT IT IS NOT A CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY, THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONE R CANNOT SUBSTITUTE HIS VIEW TO THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE JUDGM ENT OF APEX COURT IN SURESH CHANDRA MITTAL (SUPRA), TOOK ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEWS, THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE ERRONEOU S AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. REFERRING TO THE JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT IN CIT V. MAX INDIA LTD. (2007) 295 ITR 282, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS TAKEN ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEWS ON THE BASIS OF THE JUDGM ENT OF APEX COURT, THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER CANNOT SUBST ITUTE HIS VIEW BY HOLDING THAT THE DROPPING THE PENALTY PROCEEDING IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. 10 I.T.A. NOS.2450 TO 2452/CHNY/16 I.T.A. NOS.2386 TO 2401/CHNY/16 6. SH. T. BANUSEKAR, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEES, FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF SMT. H . PRADEEPA IN I.T.A. NO.2392/CHNY/2016 AND SHRI V. RAMESH IN I.T. A. NO.2398/CHNY/2016, IN ALL OTHER CASES, THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IS TIME BARRED, THEREFORE, THERE CANNOT BE ANY PENALTY PROCEEDING. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, EVEN THE ASSES SMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 31.03.2014 IN AL L THE CASES EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF SMT. H. PRADEEPA AND SHRI V. RAMESH, CANNOT STAND IN THE EYE OF LAW. HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, SINCE THE ASSESSEES FILED THE REVIS ED RETURN AND ADMITTED THE INCOME BY VOLUNTARILY OFFERING THE SAM E FOR TAXATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE JUSTIFIED IN ADMITTING THE REVISED RETURN. THAT DOES NOT MEAN, ACCORDING TO THE LD. RE PRESENTATIVE, THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN INITIATE PENALTY PRO CEEDING ON THE BASIS OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH WAS PASSED AFTE R EXPIRY OF LIMITATION. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT STAND IN THE EYE OF LAW, THEREFORE, TH ERE CANNOT BE ANY LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 11 I.T.A. NOS.2450 TO 2452/CHNY/16 I.T.A. NOS.2386 TO 2401/CHNY/16 7. ON THE CONTRARY, SMT. RUBY GEORGE, THE LD. DEPAR TMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES FILED REVISED RETURN AFTER THE SEARCH, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERE D TO BE A VOLUNTARY ONE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., EXCESS JEWELLERY W AS FOUND IN THE SEARCH PROCEEDING AND IT WAS CONTENDED BEFORE THE A SSESSING OFFICER THAT THE JEWELLERY BELONGING TO THESE ASSES SEES WERE GIVEN TO M/S AMN JEWELLERS PVT. LTD. THE SOURCE FOR ACQU ISITION OF JEWELLERY BY THESE ASSESSEES ARE GIFTS RECEIVED DUR ING THE COURSE OF MARRIAGE AND OTHER OCCASIONS FROM THE PARENTS, RELA TIVES AND FRIENDS. HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THEY COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER . SINCE THE ASSESSEES HAVE OFFERED THE COST OF JEWELLERY AS INC OME FOR TAXATION, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSING OFFICER FO UND THAT THERE WAS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME, HENCE, HE INITIATED PENA LTY PROCEEDING BY ISSUING SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. IN THE COURSE OF PEN ALTY PROCEEDING, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., ON THE BASIS OF THE JUDG MENT OF APEX COURT IN SURESH CHANDRA MITTAL (SUPRA), THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER FOUND THAT IT IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR INITIATING ANY PENALT Y. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., WHEN THERE WAS DIFFERENCE OF INCOME REPORTED AND ASSESSED, 12 I.T.A. NOS.2450 TO 2452/CHNY/16 I.T.A. NOS.2386 TO 2401/CHNY/16 THERE WAS PRESUMPTION OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME, THE REFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DROPPING THE PENALTY PROCEEDING. 8. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBM ITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT THEY OFFERED THE INCOME VO LUNTARILY IN ORDER TO AVOID LITIGATION AND BUY PEACE, ETC. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE INCOME-TAX ACT DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THIS KIND OF DEFE NCES. VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE DOES NOT DISCHARGE THE ASSESSEE FROM THE MISCHIEF OF PENALTY PROCEEDING. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DROP PED THE PROCEEDING WITHOUT ANY APPLICATION OF MIND. THEREF ORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER, BEIN G A REVISIONAL AUTHORITY, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER DROPPING THE PENALTY PROCEEDING AND DIRECTED HIM TO PASS AN ORDE R AFRESH AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMI SSIONER HAS RIGHTLY EXERCISED HIS POWER. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE PENALTY PROCEEDING INITIATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS DROPPED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEES 13 I.T.A. NOS.2450 TO 2452/CHNY/16 I.T.A. NOS.2386 TO 2401/CHNY/16 OFFERED THE INCOME VOLUNTARILY BY WAY OF FILING REV ISED RETURN AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE SAME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT I N SURESH CHANDRA MITTAL (SUPRA). THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISS IONER IN EXERCISING OF HIS POWER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE AC T, HELD THAT VOLUNTARY OFFER OF INCOME BY WAY OF REVISED RETURN DOES NOT ABSOLVE THE ASSESSEES FROM THE MISCHIEF OF PENALTY CONSEQUE NCES AS PROVIDED UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT. 10. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE PROVISO TO S ECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS:- S.271. FAILURE TO FURNISH RETURNS, COMPLY WITH NOTICES , CONCEALMENT OF INCOME, ETC. - (1) IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONE R OR COMMISSIONER IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT, IS SATISFIED THAT ANY PERSON (B) .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (C) HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME, OR HE MAY DIRECT THAT SUCH PERSON SHALL PAY BY WAY OF PENALTY,-- (II) IN THE CASES REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (B), IN ADD ITION TO TAX, IF ANY, PAYABLE BY HIM, A SUM OF TEN THOUSAND RUPEES FOR EA CH SUCH FAILURE ; (III) IN THE CASES REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (C) OR CLA USE (D), IN ADDITION TO TAX, IF ANY, PAYABLE BY HIM, A SUM WHICH SHALL NO T BE LESS THAN, 14 I.T.A. NOS.2450 TO 2452/CHNY/16 I.T.A. NOS.2386 TO 2401/CHNY/16 BUT WHICH SHALL NOT EXCEED 1THREE TIMES, THE AMOUNT OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED BY REASON OF THE CONCEALMENT OF PARTIC ULARS OF HIS 4INCOME OR FRINGE BENEFITS OR THE FURNISHING OF INAC CURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME OR FRINGE BENEFITS. 11. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT IF THE ASSES SING OFFICER OR THE COMMISSIONER, IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDING U NDER THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME-TAX ACT, IS SATISFIED THAT ANY PERSON CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURA TE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME, HE MAY DIRECT SUCH PERSON SHALL PAY PE NALTY. THEREFORE, DISCRETION WAS VESTED ON THE ASSESSING O FFICER TO LEVY PENALTY IN CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEES AFTER THE SEARCH PROCEEDING IN THE CASE OF AMN JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., FILED THEIR REVISED RETURN AND OFFERED THE VALUE OF THE J EWELLERY AS INCOME AND PAID THE TAXES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEES WITHOUT ANY ALTERATION OR ADDITION . 12. THE QUESTION ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHEN T HE ASSESSEES FILED THE REVISED RETURN AFTER THE SEARCH OPERATION IN THE CASE OF AMN JEWELLERS PVT. LTD. AND OFFERED THE VALUE OF TH E JEWELLERY FOR TAXATION, WHETHER PENALTY PROCEEDING CAN BE INITIAT ED AGAINST THE 15 I.T.A. NOS.2450 TO 2452/CHNY/16 I.T.A. NOS.2386 TO 2401/CHNY/16 ASSESSEES? THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPIN ION THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEES OFFERED THE INCOME VOLUNTARILY AND OF FERED THE SAME FOR TAXATION AND THE SOURCE OF ACQUISITION OF SUCH JEWELLERY WAS ALSO EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS THE GIFTS FROM RELATIVES, FRIENDS AND PARENTS, WHICH ARE ACCEPTED, THERE IS N O NEED TO PROCEED FURTHER WITH PENALTY PROCEEDING. AS RIGHTL Y SUBMITTED BY THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT IN SURES H CHANDRA MITTAL (SUPRA). 13. IN THE CASE OF SURESH CHANDRA MITTAL (SUPRA), T HE ASSESSEE ORIGINALLY FILED RETURN SHOWING MEAGRE INCOME. AFT ER THE SEARCH OPERATION, A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WA S SERVED AND BY WAY OF REVISED RETURN, HIGHER INCOME WAS OFFERED FO R TAXATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REGULARIZED THE REVISED RETURN AN D ACCEPTED THE INCOME OFFERED IN THE REVISED RETURN. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY WHICH WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(APPEALS ). BUT, THIS TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAD NOT DISCHARG ED ANY BURDEN OF PROVING CONCEALMENT AND SIMPLY RESTED ITS CONCLU SION ON THE ACT OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER DONE IN GOOD FAITH, THEREFOR E, THE PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED. ON A REFERENCE TO THE HIGH COURT , IT WAS FOUND 16 I.T.A. NOS.2450 TO 2452/CHNY/16 I.T.A. NOS.2386 TO 2401/CHNY/16 THAT NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED FOR CONCEALMENT. THI S JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT IS REPORTED IN (2000) 241 ITR 124 AND ON FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE APEX COURT, THE APEX COURT DISMISSED THE APPEAL. IN THIS CASE, SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FOLLOWED THE JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT IN SURESH CHANDRA MITTAL (SUPRA), IT CAN NOT BE SAID THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOU S AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF T HE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R FOR DROPPING THE PENALTY PROCEEDING INITIATED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT IS ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEWS SUPPORTED BY THE JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT IN SURESH CHANDRA MITTAL (SUPRA). THEREFORE, IT IS NOT JUSTIFIED FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER TO SUBSTITUTE HIS VIEW BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DROPPING THE PEN ALTY PROCEEDING INITIATED. THEREFORE, WE ARE UNABLE TO UPHOLD THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER. ACCORDINGLY THE ORDERS OF THE ADMINI STRATIVE COMMISSIONER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AR E SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DROPPING THE PENA LTY PROCEEDING ARE RESTORED. 14. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEES STAND ALLOWED. 17 I.T.A. NOS.2450 TO 2452/CHNY/16 I.T.A. NOS.2386 TO 2401/CHNY/16 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 17 TH MAY, 2018 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !'# ! ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 17 TH MAY, 2018. KRI. / -267 87)2 /COPY TO: 1. +, /APPELLANT 2. -.+, /RESPONDENT 3. 1 92 /CIT, CENTRAL-II, CHENNAI-34 4. 7: -2 /DR 5. ;( < /GF.