Hello friends,
An assessee due to complexity and peculiar nature of its business as well as high volume of transactions of business failed to disclose comi. income in return. Now the same is identified on going through 26AS statement and the same is offered to tax. But AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c). Any remedy available? Any case laws?
Thankyou.
Apparantly non disclosure of income leads to Concealment of fact.
This should be taken care before filing the return of income...
If any time left try to make a revised return !!! ( based on your conduct with Assessing Officer )
Look, I think you filed the revised return after receipt of 143(1) intimation. It is believed that an opportunity of defending yourself might have been granted by the AO. Imposing penalty is discretionary on AO's part. Try to convince him that your intention was not to defraud the revenue.
You may consider filing appeal against the penalty order.
Regards,
When the assessee discovers any ommission or worng statement in the return filed. the Income Tax Act permits the filing of the revised return of income. The discovery of the omission or wrong statement may be by the assessee himself. Thus, if a revised return is validly filed under Sectiion 139(5) before the detection of concealment by the department, provided
(i) the omission was not deliberate
(ii) or was not the result of the fradulent conduct of the assessee and
(iii) was a voluntary act,
then penalty for concealment would not be levied.
( However if filing of revised return is after the same is detected by the AO, the assessee cannot plead for absolving himself from the penalty by filing the revised ROI)
Though Penalty is leviable it is not mandatory and is subject to discretionary power of the assessee. However first thing to levy penalty is to prove "mens rea" : a mind or intention to commit fraud. If there is no mens rea penalty should not be levied.
Penalty is only for wilful mistake
Dear Shardha
There is a Supreme Court Decision in Central Exciese Act in the case of Dharmendra Textile Processors (2007) 295 ITR 244 (SC) for penalty under sec.11AC of the act. It is decided in the case that Mensea is not an essential condition for imposing penalty. And also it is seen in some articles in this regard is that mensrea is considered only in procecution cases.
Shradha also refer this link
https://www.hindu.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=2008120850031400.htm&date=2008/12/08/&prd=biz&
CAclubindia
