SANSUI STEELS P.LTD, MUMBAI v. ITO 7(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1403/MUM/2015 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2017 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 140319914 RSA 2015
Assessee PAN AAACS8834K
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 1403/MUM/2015
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 21 day(s)
Appellant SANSUI STEELS P.LTD, MUMBAI
Respondent ITO 7(2)(2), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Tags No record found
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 30-11-2017
Date Of Final Hearing 01-09-2016
Next Hearing Date 01-09-2016
First Hearing Date 01-09-2016
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 09-03-2015
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH A MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO. 1403/MUM/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09 SANSUI STEEL PVT. LTD. 401 - C GOKUL BUILDING 80A BARODA STREET IRON MARKET S.T. MARG CARNAC BUNDER MUMBAI - 400009 VS. ITO - 7(2)(2) ROOM NO. 621 - A AYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI - 400020. PAN NO. AAACS8834K APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : MR. K. GOPAL & MS. NEHA PARANJPE AR REVENUE BY : MR. RAJESH KUMAR YADAV DR DATE OF HEARING : 2 7 /09 /2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30/11/2017 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE REL EVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2008 - 09 . THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 14 MUMBAI AND ARISES OUT OF THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (THE ACT). 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER: 1. THE CIT(A) - 14 MUMBAI ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER DATED 23.12.2014 UPHOLDING THE ORDER DATED 25.09.2013 PASSED BY THE LD. AO LEVYING THE CONCEALMENT PENALTY OF RS.4 63 500/ - U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE AC T WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. HENCE SANSUI STEEL PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 1403/MUM/2015 2 THE LEVY OF CONCEALMENT OF PENALTY IS NOT AT ALL JUSTIFIED AND THE SAME MAY BE DELETED. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT CONCEALED ANY PARTICULAR OF INCOM E OR FURNISHED ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS. HENCE THE LEVY OF CONCEALMENT OF PENALTY OF RS.4 63 500/ - U/S 271(1)(C) IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND THE SAME MAY BE DELETED. 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY FILED ITS RETURN O F INCOME FOR THE AY 2008 - 09 ON 09.07.2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.11 49 410/ - . DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) WAS INFORMED BY THE INVESTIGATION UNIT - I MUMBAI THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132 WAS CONDUC TED BY THE REVENUE IN THE CASE OF M/S MAHASAGAR SECURITIES PVT. LTD. ( N OW ALAG SECURITIES PVT. LTD.). DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IT WAS REVEALED THAT M/S MAHASAGAR SECURITIES PVT. LTD. AND ITS RELATED GROUP OF AROUND 36 COMPANIES RUN BY MR. MUKESH CHOKSI WERE NOT ENGAGED IN ANY GENUINE BUSINESS BUT INVOLVED IN FRAUDULENT BILLING ACTIVITIES AND PROVIDING BOGUS SPECULATION PROFIT/LOSS S HORT T ERM C APITAL G AIN S / L OSS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY PROFIT/LOSS ON COMMODITY TRADING ( T HROUGH MCX). IT WA S FURTHER REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY HAD GIVEN S HARE A PPLICATION M ONEY OF RS.5 00 000/ - FROM M/S JAIHIND SYNTETICS LTD. AND RS.10 00 000/ - FROM M/S TALENT INFOWAY LTD. TOTALLING RS.15 00 000/ - . 3.1 ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE SPECIFIC INFORMATION T HE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 ON 21.02.2012. IN RESPONSE TO IT THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ON 29.02.2012 THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED ON 09.07.2008 BE TREATED AS RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148. SANSUI STEEL PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 1403/MUM/2015 3 3.2 DURING THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF APPLICATION MONEY AMOUNTING TO RS.15 00 000/ - . THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO ON 20.03.2013 AN AFFIDAVIT OF ITS DIRECTOR SHRI VISHWANATHAN H. IYER STATING THAT THE ABOVE AMOUNT OF RS.15 00 000/ - REPRE SENTS ITS INCOME AND IT OFFERED THE SAME TO TAX TO BUY PEACE WITH THE DEPARTMENT AND ACCORDINGLY PAID THE TAX. THE AO THUS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 ON 22.03.2013 MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.15 00 000/ - AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 . 4. THE AO THEN IMPOSED A MINIMUM PENALTY OF RS.4 63 500/ - U/S 271(1)(C) ON THE REASON THAT (I) IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 09.07.2008 THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCLOSED THE ABOVE FACTS (II) THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED ON 21.02.2012 AND TH E ASSESSEE FILED THE SAID AFFIDAVIT ONLY ON 20.03.2013 (III) EVEN IN THE AFFIDAVIT FILED THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE MANNER IN WHICH THE SAID INCOME WAS EARNED AND GENUINE REASON IF ANY FOR NOT OFFERING THE SAID INCOME TO TAX IN THE ORIGINAL RET URN OF INCOME OR IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT IN THE CASE OF MAK DATA PVT. LTD. VS. CIT (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9772 OF 2013) THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT THE AO SHOULD NOT BE CARRIED AWAY BY THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE LIKE VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE BUY PEACE AVOID LITIGATION AMICABLE SETTLEMENT ETC. TO EXPLAIN AWAY ITS CONDUCT. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED ANY EXPLANATION FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE SANSUI STEEL PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 1403/MUM/2015 4 PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY WAS UNABLE TO GIVE ANY EXPLANATION WHY THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN SHOWN AS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY IN THE NAME OF THE SAID TWO ENTITIES WHICH WAS FOUND TO BE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. THE MERE PLEA THAT THE SAME WAS DONE WITH A VIEW TO BUY PEACE WITH THE DEPARTMENT DID NOT CARRY ANY WEIGHTAGE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE PENALTY OF RS.4 63 500/ - LEVIED BY THE AO. 6. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN ADDITIONAL GROUND BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE LD. AO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE NOTICE DATED 22.03.2013 ISSUED U/S 274 R.W.S. 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 IS NOT DISCERNABLE AS TO WHETHER THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IS INITIATED FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. HENCE THE NOTICE DATED 22.03.2013 U/S 274 R.W.S. 271 OF THE ACT AND T HE SUBSEQUENT PENALTY ORDER U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS BAD IN L AW AND THE SAME MAY BE QUASHED. 6.1 WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ABOVE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PURELY A LEGAL GROUND AND THE SAME GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE INSTANT CASE. IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN NTPC VS. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) WE ADMIT THE ABOVE ADDITIONAL GROUND FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. NOW WE CONSIDER THE MERIT OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DA TED 22.03.2013 COMPLETED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 THE AO HAS INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME. IN THE PENALTY ORDER SANSUI STEEL PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 1403/MUM/2015 5 DATED 25.09.2013 THE AO HAS LEVIED PENALTY ON THE ASSESSEE FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 7.1 IN MAK DATA PVT. LTD . (SUPRA) THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD AT PARA 10 THE FOLLOWING: THE AO HAS TO SATISFY WHETHER THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BE INITIATED OR NOT DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE AO IS NOT REQUIRED TO RECORD HIS SATISFACTION IN A PARTICULAR MANNER OR REDUCE IT INTO WRITING. THE SCOPE OF SECTION 271(1)(C) HAS ALSO BEEN ELABORATELY DISCUSSED BY THIS COURT IN UNION OF INDIA VS. DHARMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS (2008) 13 SCC 369 AND CIT VS. ATUL MOHAN BINDAL (2009) 9 SCC 589. 7.2 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. KAUSHALYA AND OTHERS (1995) 216 ITR 660 (BOM) THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD: 9. WE WILL FIRST TAKE UP THE SHOW - CAUSE NOTICE DATED MARCH 29 1972 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1968 - 69 AND 1969 - 70. THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS WERE ALREADY MADE AND THE REASONS FOR ISSUING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(C) WERE RECORDED BY THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE FULLY KNEW IN DETAIL THE EXACT CHARGE OF THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST HIM. IN THIS BACKGROUND IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT EITHER THERE WAS NON - APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER OR THE SO - CALLED AMBIGUOUS WORDING IN THE NOTICE IMPAIRED OR PREJUDICED THE RIGHT OF THE ASSESSEE TO REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. AFTER ALL SECTION 274 OR ANY OTHER PROVIS ION IN THE ACT OR THE RULES DOES NOT EITHER MANDATE THE GIVING OF NOTICE OR ITS ISSUANCE IN A PARTICULAR FORM. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE QUASI - CRIMINAL IN NATURE. SECTION 274 CONTAINS THE PRINCIPLE OF NA TURAL JUSTICE OF THE ASSESSEE BEING HEARD BEFORE LEVYING PENALTY. RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE CANNOT BE IMPRISONED IN ANY STRAIGHT - JACKET FORMULA. FOR SUSTAINING A COMPLAINT OF FAILURE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE ON THE GROUND OF ABSENCE OF SANSUI STEEL PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 1403/MUM/2015 6 OPPORTUNI TY IT HAS TO BE ESTABLISHED THAT PREJUDICE IS CAUSED TO THE CONCERNED PERSON BY THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED. THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE DEVICE FOR INFORMING THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE PROPOSAL TO LEVY PENALTY IN ORDER TO ENABLE HIM TO EXPLAIN AS T O WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE DONE. MERE MISTAKE IN THE LANGUAGE USED OR MERE NON - STRIKING OF THE INACCURATE PORTION CANNOT BY ITSELF INVALIDATE THE NOTICE. THE ENTIRE FACTUAL BACKGROUND WOULD FALL FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE MATTER AND NO ONE ASPECT WOULD BE DECISI VE. IN THIS CONTEXT USEFUL REFERENCE MAY BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MITHILA MOTOR 'S (P.) LTD. [1984] 149 ITR 751 (PATNA) (HEAD NOTE): UNDER SECTION 274 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT 1961 ALL THAT IS REQUIRED IS THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW CAUSE. NO STATUTORY NOTICE HAS BEEN PRESCRIBED IN THIS BEHALF. HENCE IT IS SUFFICIENT IF THE ASSESSEE WAS A WARE OF THE CHARGES HE HAD TO MEET AND WAS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. A MISTAKE IN THE NOTICE WOULD NOT INVALIDATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS.' 7.3 I N CIT VS. SAMSON PERINCHERRY (ITA NO. 953 1097 1154 & 1226 OF 2014) T HE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD: THEREFORE THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REGARD TO ONLY ONE OF THE TWO BREACHES MENTIONED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WILL NOT WARRANT/PERMIT PENALTY BEING IMPOSED FOR THE OR DER BREACH. THIS IS MORE SO AS AN ASSESSEE WOULD RESPOND TO THE GROUND ON WHICH THE PENALTY HAS BEEN INITIATED/NOTICE ISSUED. IT MUST THEREFORE FOLLOW THAT THE ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY HAS TO BE MADE ONLY ON THE GROUND OF WHICH THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAS BEEN INITIATED AND IT CANNOT BE ON A FRESH GROUND OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS NO NOTICE. 8. IN VIEW OF THE FACTUAL MATRIX IN THE INSTANT CASE AND THE JUDGMENTS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT NARRATED SANSUI STEEL PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 1403/MUM/2015 7 HEREINBEFORE AT PARA 7 7 .1 7.2 & 7.3 WE FIND THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DEVOID O F MERIT. HENCE THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 9. NOW WE DWELL ON THE MERIT OF THE CASE. BEFORE US THE LD. COUNSEL S OF THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR ARGUMENT S HA VE FILED A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING ( I ) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF FILING RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2008 - 09 ALONG WITH COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME (II) DETAILS OF SHAREHOLDERS ALONG WITH NUMBER OF SHARES HELD BY THEM (III) NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 ALONG WITH REASONS RECOR DED FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT FOR AY 2008 - 09 (IV) REPLY OF THE NOTICE U/S 142 OF THE ACT DATED 02.03.2013 (V) REPLY TO THE NOTICE U/S 142 OF THE ACT DATED 12.03.2013 (VI) DETAILS OF ADDITIONAL SHARES ISSUED (VII) RESOLUTION PASSED ON 09.07.2007 B Y TALENT INFOWAY LTD. ALONG WITH DETAILS OF SHARES CONFIRMATION LETTER SHARE APPLICATION FORM (VIII) RESOLUTION PASSED ON 09.07.2007 BY JAI HIND SYNTHETICS LTD. ALONG WITH DETAILS OF SHARES CONFIRMATION LETTER SHARE APPLICATION FORM (IX) AFFIDAVIT OF MR. VISHWANATHAN H. IYER (X) ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143 R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT DATED 22.03.2013 (XI) TAX PAYMENT RECE IPT (XII) ANNUAL RETURN (XIII) RETURN OF ALLOTMENT ALONG WITH DETAILS OF SHARES (XIV) RECEIPT FROM MINISTRY OF CORPORATION AFFAIRS (XV) FORM OF FILING PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND OTHER DOCUMENT (XVI) WRITTEN SUBMISSION . (XVII) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF FILING RETURN AUDIT REPORT INCLUDING FORM 3CD ALONG WITH ANNEXURES (XVIII) THE BALANCE SHEET PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNTS A LONG WITH SCHEDULES (XIX ) THE RETURN OF ALLOTMENT IN FORM 2 PURSUANT TO SECTION 75(1) OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 SHOWING THAT THE SHARE WERE ALLOTTED IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR AT SAME RATE OF PREMIUM. SANSUI STEEL PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 1403/MUM/2015 8 10. PER CONTRA THE LD. DR RELIES HEAVILY ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS ON RECORD. THE REASONS OF OUR DECISIONS ARE GIVEN BELOW. THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS AS NARRATED HEREINBEFORE IS : (I) THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2008 - 09 ON 09.07.2008 DISCLOSING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.11 49 410/ - (II) THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 ON 21.02.2012 (III) THE ASSESSEE FILED AN AFFIDAVIT ON 20.03.2013 OFFERING RS.15 00 000/ - T O TAX AND (IV) THE AO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT ON 22.03.2013 MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.15 00 000/ - TO THE INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. 11.1 THE BACKGROUND AS DELINEATED HEREINBEFORE IS THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132 CONDUCTED I N THE CASE OF M/S MAHASAGAR SECURITIES PVT. LTD. IT WAS REVEALED THAT THESE WERE FRAUDULENT TRANSACTIONS. THIS LED THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY TO OFFER RS.15 00 000/ - TO TAX BY FILING AN AFFIDAVIT BEFORE THE AO ON 20.03.2013. THEREFORE THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE DELINEATED AT PARA 9 HEREINBEFORE LOSES ITS SIGNIFICANCE. 11.2 WHERE THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF VOLUNTARILY CONCEDES THAT A PARTICULAR ITEM OF INCOME HAD BEEN CONCEALED BY HIM AND SURRENDERS SUCH INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT TH ERE IS NOTHING LEFT FOR THE REVENUE TO PROVE THE FACTUM OF IT BEING ASSESSEE S INCOME AND AL SO THE FACTUM OF IT HAVING BEEN CONCEALED BY HIM. IN SUCH CASES SUCH CONCESSION BY THE ASSESSEE MAY AFFORD SOUND FOUNDATION FOR THE IMPOSITIO N OF PENALTY . A PLETHO RA OF PRECEDENTS ON THE SUBJECT IN WHICH WE ARE PRESENTLY SANSUI STEEL PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 1403/MUM/2015 9 CONCERNED COMPELS US IN ORDER TO AVOID PROLIXITY TO REFER ONLY A FEW DECISIONS. THESE ARE : DURGA TIMBER WORK S VS. CIT (1971) 79 ITR 63 (DEL); BANARAS CHEMICALS FACTORY VS. CIT (1977) 108 ITR 96 (ALL) AYYASAMI NADAR & BROS. VS. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 565 (MAD); INDIA SEA FOODS VS. CIT (1978) 114 ITR 12 4 (KER); H.V. VENUGOPAL CHETTIAR VS. CIT (1985) 153 ITR 376 (MAD); WESTERN AUTOMOBILES (INDIA) VS. CIT (1978) 112 ITR 1048 (BOM); CIT VS. KRISHNA & CO . (1979) 120 ITR 144 (MAD); CIT VS. P.B. SHAH & CO. PR. LTD . (1978) 113 ITR 587 (CAL ); CIT VS. DR. R.C. GUPTA & CO. (1980) 122 ITR 567 (RAJ). 11.3 IN MAK DATA PVT. LTD . (SUPRA) THE IR LORDSHIPS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AT PARA 8 HAVE HELD: 8. ASSESSEE HAS ONLY STATED THAT HE HAD SURRENDERED THE ADDITIONAL SUM OF RS.40 74 000/ - WITH A VIEW TO AVOID LITIGATION BUY PEACE AND TO CHANNELIZE THE ENERGY AND RESOURCES TOWARDS PRODUCTIVE WORK AND TO MAKE AMICABLE SETTLEMENT WITH THE INCOME TAX DEPARTME NT. STATUTE DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THOSE TYPES OF DEFENCES UNDER THE EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IT IS TRITE LAW THAT THE VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE DOES NOT RELEASE THE APPELLANT - ASSESSEE FROM THE MISCHIEF OF PENAL PROCEEDINGS. THE LAW DOES N OT PROVIDE THAT WHEN AN ASSESSEE MAKES A VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE OF HIS CONCEALED INCOME HE HAD TO BE ABSOLVED FROM PENALTY. 11.4 TO RECAPITULATE THE AO ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S 148 ON 21.02.2012. THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY FILED AN AFFIDAVIT ON 20.03.2013 OFFERING RS.15 00 000/ - TO TAX. THE SAID AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE MANNER IN WHICH THE SAID INCOME WAS EARNED AND THE REASON IF ANY FOR NOT OFFERING THE SAID INCOME TO TAX IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED OR IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSU ED U/S 148. SANSUI STEEL PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 1403/MUM/2015 10 12. EXAMINED ON THE TOUCH - STONE OF THE AFORESAID ENUNCIATION OF LAW DELINEATED AT PARA 11.2 & 11.3 WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 13. CONSEQUENTLY THE APPEAL BEING DEVOID OF MERIT STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COU RT ON 30/11/2017. SD/ - SD/ - ( MAHAVIR SINGH ) (N.K. PRADHAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED: 30/11/2017 RAHUL SHARMA SR. P.S. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A) - 4. CIT 5. DR ITAT MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE . BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT MUMBAI