R.Alagesan, Theni vs Department Of Income Tax

This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order of

the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Madurai, dated

25.11.2014 and pertains to assessment year 2011-12, confirming 2 I.T.A. No.324/Mds/15

the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act,

1961 (in short 'the Act').

2. No one appeared for the assessee inspite of service of

notice by RPAD. The registry has placed on record the postal

acknowledgement as proof of service of notice to the assessee.

Accordingly, we heard the Ld. Departmental Representative and

proceed to dispose the appeal on merit.

3. Shri A.V. Sreekanth, the Ld. Departmental Representative,

submitted that the assessee has not filed the return of income for

the assessment year 2011-12. There was a search in the premises

of the assessee under Section 133A of the Act. The Ld. D.R.

further submitted that the assessee engaged himself in the business

of real estate for the past ten years. The assessee's wife Smt. S.

Manimozhi is working as teacher in a Government aided

management school. Consequent to the search, the assessee filed

return of income declaring a sum of `58,03,956/- towards his total

income. The assessee also declared agricultural income of

`1,70,100/-. The Ld. D.R. submitted that the assessee's returned

income of `58,03,956/- was accepted and the assessment was

completed. However, penalty proceeding was initiated under

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. D.R. submitted that but for the 3 I.T.A. No.324/Mds/15

search, the assessee would not have filed the return of income

determining the income of `58,03,956/-. Since the return was not

filed in the regular course, according to the Ld. D.R., the penalty

was rightly levied by the Assessing Officer. However, the

CIT(Appeals) deleted the penalty.

4. We have heard the submission of the Ld. D.R. and perused

the material available on record. No doubt, the assessee had not

filed the return of income before the date of search. But, after the

date of search, the assessee filed the return of income which was

within the time limit provided under Section 139(4) of the Act. The

CIT(Appeals) found that the time limit to file the return of income

under Section 139(4) of the Act was available upto 31.03.2012 for

the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, the return

filed by the assessee was within the time limit provided under the

Act. When the assessee had filed the return of income within the

time limit provided under Section 139(4) of the Act, even though

after the survey under Section 133A of the Act, this Tribunal is of

the considered opinion that it cannot be construed as the return was

not filed. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied

only if the assessee concealed the particulars of income or

furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. In this case, the 4 I.T.A. No.324/Mds/15

return was filed within the time limit provided under Section 139(4)

of the Act and the declared income was accepted by the Assessing

Officer without any further addition. Therefore, it cannot be said that

the assessee concealed any part of his income or furnished

inaccurate particulars. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered

opinion that the CIT(Appeals) has rightly deleted the penalty levied

by the Assessing Officer. We find no infirmity in the order of the

CIT(Appeals). Accordingly, the order of the CIT(Appeals) is

confirmed.

5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced on 15th May, 2015 at Chennai.

sd/- sd/- (A.Mohan Alankamony) (N.R.S. Ganesan) (ए. मोहन अलंकामणी) (एन.आर.एस. गणेशन) लेखा सद य/Accountant Member या यक सद य/Judicial Member

चे नई/Chennai, th 4दनांक/Dated, the 15 May, 2015. Kri.

आदे श क. , त5ल6प अ7े6षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ+/Appellant 2. ,-यथ+/Respondent 3. आयकर आय8 ु त (अपील)/CIT(A)-I, Madurai 4. आयकर आय8 ु त/CIT-II, Madurai 5. 6वभागीय , त न ध/DR 6. गाड' फाईल/GF.