PJL CLOTHING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI V. DCIT 8 2 1, MUMBAI

ITA 5916/MUM/2024

AI Insights

PJL Clothing India Pvt. Ltd. appealed against the penalty imposed for claiming a weighted deduction under section 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in their tax return for the assessment year 2016-17. The deduction was claimed for donations made to M/s Rural Development Society, which was later identified as a bogus entity involved in a donation racket. The assessee voluntarily withdrew the claim and offered the amount for taxation only after receiving a notice under section 148. The Tribunal found that the penalty was rightly imposed as the surrender of the deduction was not made voluntarily but was a reaction to the notice received.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 473339 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Other Referred Cases: Armoury International and Ashvin Naraya Bajori in ITA No.3299/3300/3301/Mum/2017, Mak Data Private Limited v. CIT, Jyoti Laxman Konkar vs CIT
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MAHESH PAMNANI
• Assessee Lawyers: SATISH MODI
• Keywords: Revised return; Reasonable cause; Reassessment proceedings; Question of law; Wrong claim; Bogus
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3); 271(1)(c); 274; 133A

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.5916/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17) PJL Clothing India Pvt. Ltd. 505, 506 Dalamal Chambers, New Marine Lines, VitthaldasThackersey Marg, Churchgate, Maharashtra-400020 v/s. बनाम NFAC/DCIT 8 2 1 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 \u0001थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAACP2782R Appellant/अपीलाथ\u0007 .. Respondent/\b\tतवाद\r Assessee by : Mr. Satish Modi Revenue by : Shri Mahesh Pamnani,Sr.DR Date of Hearing 05.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 10.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PERPRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :- The instantappeal emanating from the appellate order dated 28.10.2024 is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal)-Mumbai/ National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to the penalty order u/s271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 22.12.2021as passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 20 2. The assessee has raised “a. Under The facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT Appeals erred in confirming the penalty of Rs 23,14,410/ b. The learned CIT Appeals failed to appreciate that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act is not leviable, where the assessee voluntarilty withdrew the claim of weighted deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act and offered to tax the claim in the return of income filed pursuant to notice u/s 148 of the Act as the explanation offered is genui c. The Appellant craves leave to add alter or amend any of the forgoing grounds of Appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case a was made determining assessed income of Rs. 2,37,32,590/ provision and Rs. 4,02,04,312/ returned income. In the original return deduction u/s 35 (1)(ii) of Rs. 70,00,000/ Rs. 40,00,000/-to M/s Rural Developme was duly allowed. Subsequently donation racket u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Society Hyderabad received from CBDT, proceedings u/s 147 initiated on 19.03.2019. As per information purpose of Section 35(1)(ii) and not eligible for raising any donation for undertaking scientific research and consequently to claim any benefit of deduct list of donors who had ITA No. PJL Clothing India Pvt Ltd. 22.12.2021as passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2016-17. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “a. Under The facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT Appeals erred in confirming the penalty of Rs 23,14,410/-u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. b. The learned CIT Appeals failed to appreciate that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) e IT Act is not leviable, where the assessee voluntarilty withdrew the claim of weighted deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act and offered to tax the claim in the return of income filed pursuant to notice u/s 148 of the Act as the explanation offered is genuine and Bonafide. c. The Appellant craves leave to add alter or amend any of the forgoing facts of the case are that original assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act assessed income of Rs. 2,37,32,590/ provision and Rs. 4,02,04,312/- under MAT provisions by accepting the returned income. In the original return,the assessee claimed weighted deduction u/s 35 (1)(ii) of Rs. 70,00,000/- in respect of against donation of M/s Rural Development Society(henceforth ‘RDS’) . Subsequently, on the basis of information regarding bogus donation racket u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act in the case M/s Rural Development Society Hyderabad received from CBDT, proceedings u/s 147 initiated on . As per information RDS, Hyderabad was not recognized for the purpose of Section 35(1)(ii) and not eligible for raising any donation for undertaking scientific research and consequently donorswere also not eligible claim any benefit of deduction. Assessee’s name was also indicated in the given donation to the above society and claimed P a g e | 2 ITA No. 5916/MUM/2024 A.Y. 2016-17 PJL Clothing India Pvt Ltd. 22.12.2021as passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi “a. Under The facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT Appeals u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. b. The learned CIT Appeals failed to appreciate that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) e IT Act is not leviable, where the assessee voluntarilty withdrew the claim of weighted deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act and offered to tax the claim in the return of income filed pursuant to notice u/s 148 of the Act as the c. The Appellant craves leave to add alter or amend any of the forgoing u/s 143(3) of the Act assessed income of Rs. 2,37,32,590/- under normal under MAT provisions by accepting the assessee claimed weighted against donation of (henceforth ‘RDS’)which on the basis of information regarding bogus in the case M/s Rural Development Society Hyderabad received from CBDT, proceedings u/s 147 initiated on Hyderabad was not recognized for the purpose of Section 35(1)(ii) and not eligible for raising any donation for re also not eligible Assessee’s name was also indicated in the given donation to the above society and claimed weighted deduction under section 35(1)(ii) of the was issued to the assessee. notice by declaring total income of Rs. 3,07,32,590/ reassessment proceedings to tax the entire amount of weighted deduction of Rs. 70,00,000/ the original return of income pertain The Assessing Officer at the time of assessment, reassessed the income of Rs. 3,07,32,590/- as declared in the ITR 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act. donation to the above society was deduction on the basis of contribution receipts and certificates received from rural development society and and Education. The company was neither aware of at the time of making donation to these institutions nor at the time of filing of original return that they were raising donations on the basis forged certificates. The company never intended to make a bogus claim for the donations made for great public utilities. The assessee submitted the donations during the course of original assessment proceedings which were accepted by the AO. It is stated that the assessee certificates of RDSon receipt of the notice u/s 148 and therefore, of ITA No. PJL Clothing India Pvt Ltd. weighted deduction under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, notice 148 was issued to the assessee. It filed return on 13.04.2019 in compliance of notice by declaring total income of Rs. 3,07,32,590/-. During the course reassessment proceedings , the assessee submitted that company ha to tax the entire amount of weighted deduction of Rs. 70,00,000/ turn of income pertaining to the donation of Rs. 40,00,000/ The Assessing Officer at the time of assessment, reassessed the income of Rs. as declared in the ITR. He also initiated penalty procee for furnishing in accurate particulars of income in respect of deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act. Before him,it wascontented onation to the above society was made in good faith and it deduction on the basis of contribution receipts and certificates received from rural development society and Matrivani Institute of Experimental Research ducation. The company was neither aware of at the time of making ese institutions nor at the time of filing of original return that re raising donations on the basis forged certificates. The company never intended to make a bogus claim for the donations made for great public submitted the relevant documentary evidences of donations during the course of original assessment proceedings which were It is stated that the assessee came to know of the forged on receipt of the notice u/s 148 and therefore, of P a g e | 3 ITA No. 5916/MUM/2024 A.Y. 2016-17 PJL Clothing India Pvt Ltd. . Accordingly, notice 148 n compliance of During the course assessee submitted that company had offered to tax the entire amount of weighted deduction of Rs. 70,00,000/- claimed in to the donation of Rs. 40,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer at the time of assessment, reassessed the income of Rs. initiated penalty proceedings u/s in accurate particulars of income in respect contented that the said claimed eligible deduction on the basis of contribution receipts and certificates received from Matrivani Institute of Experimental Research ducation. The company was neither aware of at the time of making ese institutions nor at the time of filing of original return that re raising donations on the basis forged certificates. The company never intended to make a bogus claim for the donations made for great public relevant documentary evidences of donations during the course of original assessment proceedings which were came to know of the forged on receipt of the notice u/s 148 and therefore, offered to tax the entire weighted deduction of Rs. 70,00,000/ return pertaining to donations made of Rs. 40,00,000/ institutions. This offer was done in good faith in order to buy peace and avoid litigation. The AO observed that o CBDT and examining other relevant details, proceedings u/s 147 for initiated and notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee. There was concrete informa with the AO that M/s RDS u/s 35(1)(ii) and was not eligible for raising any donation for undertaking any scientific research. As per information, society was receiving donations on the basis bogus/fake documents and returning donation amount to the assess in cash after deducting commission. It was a racket running through bogus entities and receiving so called donations from the donors to them after deducting certain amount of commission. issued to the assessee as it which was bogus entities, filed in compliance of notice u/s 148. assessee came forward for surrendering the a before proceedings u/s 147. aware about the bogus entity of claiming deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) but never came forward to surrender the same until or unless notice u/s 148 was served upon him. So claim of the assessee that ITA No. PJL Clothing India Pvt Ltd. the entire weighted deduction of Rs. 70,00,000/- claimed in the original return pertaining to donations made of Rs. 40,00,000/- institutions. This offer was done in good faith in order to buy peace and avoid erved that on the basis of information received from CBDT and examining other relevant details, proceedings u/s 147 for initiated and notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee. There was concrete informa with the AO that M/s RDS was bogus society and not entitled for deduction not eligible for raising any donation for undertaking any As per information, society was receiving donations on the basis bogus/fake documents and returning donation amount to the assess in cash after deducting commission. It was a racket running through bogus so called donations from the donors and returning cash to them after deducting certain amount of commission. When notice u/s 148 it was also beneficiary oftaking deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) which was bogus entities, it surrendered the weighted deduction in the return filed in compliance of notice u/s 148. Sensing the bogus claim of deduction, assessee came forward for surrendering the amount of deduction and not before proceedings u/s 147.It is stated by the AO that the assessee was well aware about the bogus entity of claiming deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) but never came forward to surrender the same until or unless notice u/s 148 was served upon him. So claim of the assessee that itsuo-moto surrendered the amount P a g e | 4 ITA No. 5916/MUM/2024 A.Y. 2016-17 PJL Clothing India Pvt Ltd. claimed in the original - to these two institutions. This offer was done in good faith in order to buy peace and avoid n the basis of information received from CBDT and examining other relevant details, proceedings u/s 147 for initiated and notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee. There was concrete information ot entitled for deduction not eligible for raising any donation for undertaking any As per information, society was receiving donations on the basis bogus/fake documents and returning donation amount to the assessees in cash after deducting commission. It was a racket running through bogus and returning cash When notice u/s 148 was also beneficiary oftaking deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) surrendered the weighted deduction in the return Sensing the bogus claim of deduction, mount of deduction and not ssessee was well aware about the bogus entity of claiming deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) but never came forward to surrender the same until or unless notice u/s 148 was served moto surrendered the amount the donation in the revise return c would have option of filing a revise return before that and would have paid due tax before initiating the proceedings u/s 147. 148 was served upon him and upon sensing the bogus entity and claim deduction by the assessee in the ITR, surrendered of donation deduction claimed in the original ITR. of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income knowingly and without any reasonable cause and was inaccurate particulars of income. 4. In the subsequent appeal,the assessee submitted the same arguments as made before the AO.However,the ld.CIT(A) endorsed the findings and observations of the AO upholding the pe assessee. 5. Before us,during hearing of the case,the ld.AR has repeated the same contentions as made before the authorities below.It is submitted that the assessee made a bonafide claim in the return filed and the said deduction in response to the return u/s 148 which was also accepted by the AO as per the returned income.He also placed reliance on the decision of coordinate Bench of ITAT Mumbai in ITA No.3299/3300/3301/Mum/2017 in the case of Armoury International and Ashvin Naraya Bajori in ITA No. ITA No. PJL Clothing India Pvt Ltd. the donation in the revise return could not be accepted. If it was so, asseesee would have option of filing a revise return before that and would have paid due tax before initiating the proceedings u/s 147. It was awaiting till the notice u/s 148 was served upon him and upon sensing the bogus entity and claim deduction by the assessee in the ITR, surrendered of donation deduction claimed in the original ITR.So it was held that assessee had committed of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income knowingly and without any was liable to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In the subsequent appeal,the assessee submitted the same arguments as made before the AO.However,the ld.CIT(A) endorsed the findings and observations of the AO upholding the penalty and dismissed the appeal of the Before us,during hearing of the case,the ld.AR has repeated the same contentions as made before the authorities below.It is submitted that the assessee made a bonafide claim in the return filed and voluntaril the said deduction in response to the return u/s 148 which was also accepted by the AO as per the returned income.He also placed reliance on the decision of coordinate Bench of ITAT Mumbai in ITA No.3299/3300/3301/Mum/2017 oury International and Ashvin Naraya Bajori in ITA No. P a g e | 5 ITA No. 5916/MUM/2024 A.Y. 2016-17 PJL Clothing India Pvt Ltd. . If it was so, asseesee would have option of filing a revise return before that and would have paid due was awaiting till the notice u/s 148 was served upon him and upon sensing the bogus entity and claim of deduction by the assessee in the ITR, surrendered of donation deduction d committed default of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income knowingly and without any u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing of In the subsequent appeal,the assessee submitted the same arguments as made before the AO.However,the ld.CIT(A) endorsed the findings and nalty and dismissed the appeal of the Before us,during hearing of the case,the ld.AR has repeated the same contentions as made before the authorities below.It is submitted that the voluntarily surrendered the said deduction in response to the return u/s 148 which was also accepted by the AO as per the returned income.He also placed reliance on the decision of coordinate Bench of ITAT Mumbai in ITA No.3299/3300/3301/Mum/2017 oury International and Ashvin Naraya Bajori in ITA No. 369/SRT/2022 of ITAT,Surat(SMC). the other hand relied upon the orders of authorities below. 6. We have carefully pondered over all relevant facts of the case on record,rival submissions find any infirmity in the penalty order. distinguishable and not applicable to the case in hand. issue basically pertained issue here.In the present case,there is absolutely no doubtthat the assessee surrendered the impugned deduction only in consequence to the notice u/s 148 of theAct.It is evident that the original asses on21.12.2018.Notice u/s 148 was issued the receipt of information by the AO re u/s 147 was filed on between the original assessment and the filing of return u/s 147.Therefore,it cannot be said by any stretch of ima bonafide and made voluntarily. asseesee would have option of filing a revise have paid due tax before initiating the proceedings u/s 147. Assessee was awaiting till the notice u/s 148 was served upon him and upon sensing the bogus entity and claim of deduction by the assessee i ITA No. PJL Clothing India Pvt Ltd. 369/SRT/2022 of ITAT,Surat(SMC).The ld.Departmental Representative,on the other hand relied upon the orders of authorities below. We have carefully pondered over all relevant facts of the case on and the provisions of the law in this regard.We do not mity in the penalty order. The cited decisions of the ld.AR distinguishable and not applicable to the case in hand.Inthe issue basically pertained to satisfaction drawn by the assessee which is not the In the present case,there is absolutely no doubtthat the assessee surrendered the impugned deduction only in consequence to the notice u/s 148 of theAct.It is evident that the original assessment in this case was framed Notice u/s 148 was issued claim on 20.02.2019 con the receipt of information by the AO regarding the bogus nature of the u/s 147 was filed on 13.04.2019.Thus,there was a substantial between the original assessment and the filing of return u/s 147.Therefore,it ot be said by any stretch of imagination that the impugned surrender was bonafide and made voluntarily. The AO has rightly observed that if it was so, ption of filing a revised return before that and would have paid due tax before initiating the proceedings u/s 147. Assessee was awaiting till the notice u/s 148 was served upon him and upon sensing the bogus entity and claim of deduction by the assessee in the ITR, sur P a g e | 6 ITA No. 5916/MUM/2024 A.Y. 2016-17 PJL Clothing India Pvt Ltd. The ld.Departmental Representative,on We have carefully pondered over all relevant facts of the case on regard.We do not The cited decisions of the ld.AR are ese decisions,the to satisfaction drawn by the assessee which is not the In the present case,there is absolutely no doubtthat the assessee surrendered the impugned deduction only in consequence to the notice u/s sment in this case was framed on 20.02.2019 consequent to garding the bogus nature of the.Return substantial time gap between the original assessment and the filing of return u/s 147.Therefore,it gination that the impugned surrender was The AO has rightly observed that if it was so, return before that and would have paid due tax before initiating the proceedings u/s 147. Assessee was awaiting till the notice u/s 148 was served upon him and upon sensing the n the ITR, surrendered of donation deduction claimed in the original ITR which for which penalty was justified. 7. In this case,the return which revealed that the bogus.On identical facts, in CIT(2007) 209 CTR 5(Bom)/ 292 ITR 163, High Court held that the AO as well as the Tribunal having come to the conclusion the assessee had filed the initial return dishonestly with a view to conceal the income and the revised return was filed out of compulsion, i.e. after having found that the assessee had concealed the income and. filed a false return with a view to avo there is concealment of income or not has to be decided with reference to the facts of a given case and the fact finding authorities under the Act having come to the conclusion that in the facts of the case, the assessee had concea payment of tax, we are of the view that no substantial question of law is involved in this case requiring the admission of the appeal. Consequently, the same is hereby dismissed. the case of Mak Data Private Limited v. CIT 593(SC)where also the surrender of income in this case the sense that the offer of surrender was made in view of detection made by the A search conducted in the sister concern of the assessee the surrender of income was voluntary. AO during the course of assessment proceedings has noticed that certain documents comprising of share application statements, memorandum of association of companies, affidavits, copies of Income Tax Returns and assessment orders and blank share transfer deeds duly signed, have been ITA No. PJL Clothing India Pvt Ltd. donation deduction claimed in the original ITR which was found to penalty was justified. return was filed u/s 147,after enquiry by the department which revealed that the deduction claimed in the original return filed was On identical facts, in the case of Jyoti Laxman Konkar vs 09 CTR 5(Bom)/ 292 ITR 163, the hon’ble jurisdictional held that the AO as well as the Tribunal having come to the conclusion the assessee had filed the initial return dishonestly with a view to conceal the income and the revised return was filed out of compulsion, i.e. after having found that the assessee had concealed the income and. filed a false return with a view to avoid tax liability.Whether there is concealment of income or not has to be decided with reference to the facts of a given case and the fact finding authorities under the Act having come to the conclusion that in the facts of the case, the assessee had concealed the income initially with a view to avoid the payment of tax, we are of the view that no substantial question of law is involved in this case requiring the admission of the appeal. Consequently, the same is hereby dismissed. Mak Data Private Limited v. CIT (2013) 358 ITR the surrender of income in this case was not voluntary in the offer of surrender was made in view of detection made by the A search conducted in the sister concern of the assessee,it was held that it cannot be said that the surrender of income was voluntary. AO during the course of assessment proceedings has noticed that certain documents comprising of share application statements, memorandum of association of companies, affidavits, copies of Income Tax Returns and assessment orders and blank share transfer deeds duly signed, have been P a g e | 7 ITA No. 5916/MUM/2024 A.Y. 2016-17 PJL Clothing India Pvt Ltd. was found to be bogus after enquiry by the department claimed in the original return filed was Jyoti Laxman Konkar vs the hon’ble jurisdictional held that the AO as well as the Tribunal having come to the conclusion that the assessee had filed the initial return dishonestly with a view to conceal the income and the revised return was filed out of compulsion, i.e. after having found that the assessee had id tax liability.Whether there is concealment of income or not has to be decided with reference to the facts of a given case and the fact finding authorities under the Act having come to the conclusion that in the led the income initially with a view to avoid the payment of tax, we are of the view that no substantial question of law is involved in this case requiring the admission of the appeal. Consequently, the same is hereby dismissed.In (2013) 358 ITR not voluntary in the offer of surrender was made in view of detection made by the AO in the it cannot be said that the surrender of income was voluntary. AO during the course of assessment proceedings has noticed that certain documents comprising of share application forms, bank statements, memorandum of association of companies, affidavits, copies of Income Tax Returns and assessment orders and blank share transfer deeds duly signed, have been impounded in the course of survey proceedings under 16.12.2003, in the case of a sister concern of the assessee. The survey was conducted more than 10 months 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 return declaring an income inclusive of the amount which was surrendered later during the course of the assessment proceedings. Consequently, it is clear that the assessee had no intention to declare its true income. It is the statutory duty of the assessee to record all its transactions in the books of account, to explain the source of payments made by it and to declare its true income in the return of income filed by it from year to year. view, has recorded a categorical finding that he was satisfied that the assessee had concealed true particulars of income and is liable for penalty proceedings under 271 read with Section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7.1In view of the above discussion,we hold that the penalty was rightly imposed on the assessee for claiming deduction 35(1)(ii) of the Act in the original ITR and notwithstanding its surrender of the impugned its part.We,therefore, uphold the penalty order and also the appellate order. 8.In the result,the appeal of the Order pronounced in the open court on Sd/- NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (\u000eया\tयक सद\u0013य/JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. PJL Clothing India Pvt Ltd. impounded in the course of survey proceedings under Section 133A 16.12.2003, in the case of a sister concern of the assessee. The survey was conducted more than 10 months before the assessee filed its return of income. Had it been the intention of ke full and true disclosure of its income, it would have filed the return declaring an income inclusive of the amount which was surrendered later during the course of the assessment proceedings. Consequently, it is clear that the assessee had no to declare its true income. It is the statutory duty of the assessee to record all its transactions in the books of account, to explain the source of payments made by it and to declare its true income in the return of income filed by it from year to year. view, has recorded a categorical finding that he was satisfied that the assessee had concealed true particulars of income and is liable for penalty proceedings under of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In view of the above discussion,we hold that the penalty was rightly imposed on the assessee for claiming deduction on bogus deduction u/s in the original ITR and notwithstanding its impugned deduction which was in no case a voluntary act on uphold the penalty order and also the appellate order. In the result,the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 10.02.2025. Sd/ NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY PRABHASH SHANKAR JUDICIAL MEMBER) (लेखाकार सद\u0013य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) P a g e | 8 ITA No. 5916/MUM/2024 A.Y. 2016-17 PJL Clothing India Pvt Ltd. Section 133A conducted on 16.12.2003, in the case of a sister concern of the assessee. The survey was conducted more than 10 months before the assessee filed its return of income. Had it been the intention of ke full and true disclosure of its income, it would have filed the return declaring an income inclusive of the amount which was surrendered later during the course of the assessment proceedings. Consequently, it is clear that the assessee had no to declare its true income. It is the statutory duty of the assessee to record all its transactions in the books of account, to explain the source of payments made by it and to declare its true income in the return of income filed by it from year to year. The AO, in our view, has recorded a categorical finding that he was satisfied that the assessee had concealed true particulars of income and is liable for penalty proceedings under Section In view of the above discussion,we hold that the penalty was rightly on bogus deduction u/s in the original ITR and notwithstanding its subsequent deduction which was in no case a voluntary act on uphold the penalty order and also the appellate order. Sd/- PRABHASH SHANKAR ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Place: मुंबई/Mumbai \bदनांक /Date10.02.2025 अ\fनक ेत \u0010संह राजपूत/\u0017टेनो आदेश की \u0015ितिलिप अ\u001aेिषत 1. अपीलाथ\u0007 / The Appellant 2. \t थ\u0007 / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु\u0010 / CIT 4. िवभागीय \tितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण Mumbai 5. गाड\u001a फाईल / Guard file. ITA No. PJL Clothing India Pvt Ltd. आदेश की \u0015ितिलिप अ\u001aेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : / The Appellant / The Respondent. आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण DR, ITAT, स ािपत \tित //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण/ ITAT, Bench, Mumbai. P a g e | 9 ITA No. 5916/MUM/2024 A.Y. 2016-17 PJL Clothing India Pvt Ltd. //True Copy// BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) / ITAT, Bench, "