M Lazar Adaikalam filed his tax return. In a survey u/s 133A (of Income Tax Act, 1961), he voluntary disclosed income of Rs 1.6 crores and paid tax. AO completed assessment u/s 143(3) (of Income Tax Act, 1961). Subsequently, AO imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) (of Income Tax Act, 1961). CIT(A) deleted penalty. ITAT held that there was no contumacious conduct of assessee and he offered additional income and paid tax and no appeal was filed against order u/s 143(3) (of Income Tax Act, 1961). ITAT confirmed deletion of penalty.-500372
1. Assessee, a retired teacher, took VRS and engaged in real estate business.
2. He filed income tax return disclosing total income of Rs 3 lakhs.
3. In a survey u/s 133A (of Income Tax Act, 1961), he voluntary disclosed income of Rs 1.6 crores for 2009-2010 and 20101-2011.
4. He offered additional income and paid tax.
5. AO completed assessment treating the revised return filed as within the stipulated time and passed order u/s.143(3) (of Income Tax Act, 1961).
6. Subsequently, AO issued notice u/s 271(1)(c) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) for levy of penalty for concealment of income.
7. AO imposed penalty.
8. CIT(A) deleted the penalty.
On appeal, the ITAT held as under:
9. The Income Tax Department has conducted survey operations and has not found any incrementing material or impounded any evidence at the assessee's premises.
10. The fact that the assessee has cooperated in the survey operations and in assessment proceedings is not disputed.
11. There was no contumacious conduct of the assessee and offered additional income and paid taxes and no appeal was filed against the order u/s. 143(3) (of Income Tax Act, 1961).
12. We are inclined not to interfere with the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
Case Reference - The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M. Lazar Adaikalam.
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH, CHENNAI
BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT
MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
I.T.A.No. 2753/Mds/2014
(Assessment year : 2010-2011)