D.b.income Tax Appeal v. Sh.pushpendra Surana

D.B.Income Tax Appeal No.209/2012. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Jaipur VS. Shri Pushpendra Surana. 21.08.2013. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI'HONBLE MR.JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-II Mr.J.K.Singhi, Sr.Advocate assisted byMr.Anuroop Singhi, for appellant/revenue.***** Instant appeal has been filed by the Revenue u/S.260A ofthe Income Tax Act. As it reveals from the record, the assessee filed originalreturn of income on 17.11.2004 for the Assessment Year 2004-05. However, at a later stage, a notice for re-assessment u/S.148of the Act came to be issued to him on 16.07.2007 and therevised return of income was filed by the assessee on13.08.2007 which was accepted by the Assessing Authority.However, a separate proceeding for imposition of penalty wasinitiated against the assessee by issuance of notice u/S.271(1)(c)of the Act by the Assessing Authority considering it to be a caseof deliberate concealment made by the assessee and afteraffording opportunity of hearing inflicted a penalty ofRs.15,41,732/- upon the assessee. Against the order impugned, an appeal came to be filedbefore the CIT (Appeals) and the appellate authority taking noteof the submissions made and the material which came on recordobserved that after the re-assessment was accepted by theAssessing Authority, there was no material available by which it -2- D.B.Income Tax Appeal No.209/2012.CIT-I, Jaipur VS. Sh.Pushpendra Surana. could be inferred that it was a case of deliberate concealment onthe part of the assessee of withholding income for which re-assessment proceedings were initiated and the AssessingAuthority was not justified in inflicting penalty upon theassessee u/S.271(1)(c) of the Act for filing inaccurate particularsof income. Against the order dt.17.06.2011 of CIT (Appeals), therevenue preferred further appeal before the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal that came to be dismissed and the finding ofthe appellate authority came to be confirmed vide orderdt.03.01.2012. Counsel for appellant submits that merely because theAssessing Authority had accepted the revised return of income,submitted by the assessee on 13.08.2007 the proceedinginitiated against the assessee u/S.271(1)(c) of the Act andinflicting penalty upon the assessee for deliberate concealment,the observations of the CIT (Appeals) are confirmed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal could not be held to be justifiedand the scope of Sec.271(1)(c) of the Act has not been properlyappreciated by the authorities and this according to him is asubstantial question of law which certainly requiresconsideration of this Court. In our considered view, the CIT (Appeals) and so also theIncome Tax Appellate Authority both have considered thematter, in detail, and finally arrived at a conclusion that the -3- D.B.Income Tax Appeal No.209/2012.CIT-I, Jaipur VS. Sh.Pushpendra Surana. income declared by the assessee from the long term capital gainby selling agricultural land, disclosed by the assessee in hisrevised return of Income was accepted by the AssessingAuthority and there was no material available on record bywhich there could be an inference drawn by the authority that itwas a deliberate concealment on the part of the assessee and itcould not be considered that there was an inaccurate particularsof income that was made the basis for inflicting penalty upon theassessee in exercise of powers conferred u/S.271(1)(c) of theAct. We do not find any substance in the submissions made bycounsel for appellant and apart from that even if there appearssome substance, this court has a limited scope in the instantappeal u/S.260A of the Act, to examine if a substantial questionof law arises for consideration. Taking note of the submissions and the order passed by theCIT (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, in ourconsidered view, no substantial question of law arises in the We do not find any substance in the submissions made bycounsel for appellant and apart from that even if there appearssome substance, this court has a limited scope in the instantappeal u/S.260A of the Act, to examine if a substantial questionof law arises for consideration. Taking note of the submissions and the order passed by theCIT (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, in ourconsidered view, no substantial question of law arises in the instant appeal which may require consideration. Consequently, the appeal is wholly devoid of merits andaccordingly dismissed. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-II),J. (AJAY RASTOGI),J. All corrections made in judgment/order have beenincorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.Solanki DS, P.A.incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.Solanki DS, P.A.