Section :- S. 271(1)(c), S. 263, Court (Ker.)(HC), Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Estimate of income-Possible view-Revision is held to be not justified-Dropping of concealment penalty by the Assessing Officer-Revision order directing to levy of 300%-Tribunal affirming 200% levy of penalty-Order of tribunal is affirmed. [S.133A, 271(1)(c)]

Section :- S. 271(1)(c), S. 263

Court (Ker.)(HC)

Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Estimate of income-Possible view-Revision is held to be not justified-Dropping of concealment penalty by the Assessing Officer-Revision order directing to levy of 300%-Tribunal affirming 200% levy of penalty-Order of tribunal is affirmed. [S.133A, 271(1)(c)]

The assessee is in the business of conducting a bar attached hotel. It filed a return of income for the assessment year 2006-07. In the survey conducted under S. 133A at the business premises of the assessee. Incriminating documents and evidence were noticed, The daily statement and sales vouchers were found to be destroyed by burning after reporting the sale amount of liquor to the managing partner. The assessee offered an additional amount of Rs.23,00,000 for assessment consequent to the survey proceedings, but the AO found this insufficient and added a sum of Rs.

14,00,000 to make good the shortfall. The assessee agreed to that. The penalty proceedings were dropped by the AO. The CIT passed two orders in respect of the quantum and penalty proceedings. The Commissioner also held that this was a fit case for imposing a maximum penalty of 300 per cent. The Tribunal upheld the assessment and justified the penalty, but reduced the penalty from 300 per cent. of the tax on the admitted income to Rs. 200 per cent. On appeal the Court held that the calculation of the gross profit was made by the Assessing Officer, and the assessee agreed to the additions made. The changes suggested by the Commissioner invoking the revisional jurisdiction under S. 263 were not sustainable. As regards the concealment penalty the Court held that it was only consequent to the survey that the assessee had filed a return of income and shown an additional income of Rs. 23 lakhs. Even that was not found to be sufficient, and the Assessing Officer had made a further addition of Rs. 14 lakhs. There was a conscious attempt on the part of the assessee to destroy accounts. Accordingly the order of Appellate Tribunal is affirmed. (AY.2006-07)

Malanadu Tourist Home v. CIT (2020)423 ITR 262 (Ker.)(HC)