COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. PUSHPENDRA SURANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT appeal has been filed by the Revenue under s. 260A of the IT Act. As it reveals from the record, the assessee filed original return of income on 17th Nov., 2004 for the asst. yr. 2004 -05. However, at a later stage, a notice for reassessment under s. 148 of the Act came to be issued to him on 16th July, 2007 and the revised return of income was filed by the assessee on 13th Aug., 2007 which was accepted by the assessing authority. However, a separate proceeding for imposition of penalty was initiated against the assessee by issuance of notice under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act by the assessing authority considering it to be a case of deliberate concealment made by the assessee and after affording opportunity of hearing inflicted a penalty of Rs. 15,41,732 upon the assessee.

(2.) AGAINST the order impugned, an appeal came to be filed before the CIT(A) and the appellate authority taking note of the submissions made and the material which came on record observed that after the reassessment was accepted by the assessing authority, there was no material available by which it could be inferred that it was a case of deliberate concealment on the part of the assessee of withholding income for which reassessment proceedings were initiated and the assessing authority was not justified in inflicting penalty upon the assessee under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for filing inaccurate particulars of income.

(3.) COUNSEL for appellant submits that merely because the assessing authority had accepted the revised return of income, submitted by the assessee on 13th Aug., 2007 the proceeding initiated against the assessee under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and inflicting penalty upon the assessee for deliberate concealment, the observations of the CIT(A) are confirmed by the Tribunal could not be held to be justified and the scope of s. 271(1)(c) of the Act has not been properly appreciated by the authorities and this according to him is a substantial question of law which certainly requires consideration of this Court.