Commissioner of Income Tax vs Pushpendra Surana

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.

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.

Against the order dt. 17th June, 2011 of CIT(A), the Revenue preferred further appeal before the Tribunal that came to be dismissed and the finding of the appellate authority came to be confirmed vide order dt. 3rd Jan., 2012.

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.

In our considered view, the CIT(A) and so also the Tribunal both have considered the matter, in detail, and finally arrived at a conclusion that the income declared by the assessee from the long-term capital gain by selling agricultural land, disclosed by the assessee in his revised return of income was accepted by the assessing authority and there was no material available on record by which there could be an inference drawn by the authority that it was a deliberate concealment on the part of the assessee and it could not be considered that there was an inaccurate particular of income that was made the basis for inflicting penalty upon the assessee in exercise of powers conferred under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.

We do not find any substance in the submissions made by counsel for appellant and apart from that even if there appears some substance, this Court has a limited scope in the instant appeal under s. 260A of the Act, to examine if a substantial question of law arises for consideration. Taking note of the submissions and the order passed by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, in our considered view, no substantial question of law arises in the instant appeal which may require consideration.

Consequently, the appeal is wholly devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed.