C.P. Sethumadhavan, v. DCIT,Cen.Cir.1(1),

ITA 224/PUN/2009 | 2000-2001
Pronouncement Date: 13-08-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 22424514 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AESPC5520M
Bench Pune
Appeal Number ITA 224/PUN/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 6 month(s)
Appellant C.P. Sethumadhavan,
Respondent DCIT,Cen.Cir.1(1),
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 13-08-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 13-08-2010
Assessment Year 2000-2001
Appeal Filed On 13-02-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV(JM) AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO (AM) ITA NO. 224/PN/2009 (ASSTT. YEAR : 2000-01) C.P. SETHUMADHAVAN VIJAY HOUSE 599 SACHAPIR STREET PUNE 411001 PAN : AESPC 5520 M .. APPELLANT V. THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) PUNE P.M.T. BUILDING SWARGATE PUNE . RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI P.D. KUDVA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. ABHAY DAMLE ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO AM THIS IS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)- I PUNE DATED 21.11.2008 FOR THE A.Y. 2000-01. G ROUNDS READS THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) PUNE LEVYING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) ON ADDITION OF RS. 1 67 500 /- MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT BY WAY OF PROFIT ON UNRECORDED SALES OF LAND . THE APPELLANT PLEADS THAT THE ADDITION AROSE ON ACCOUNT OF AN INADVERTENT ERROR O F OMISSION NOT JUSTIFYING LEVY OF PENALTY . 2. RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SEARCHED BY THE REVENUE U/S. 132 OF THE ACT ON 24.6.2003 IN CONNECT ION WITH SEARCH OF KIRTI DEVELOPERS AND ITS ASSOCIATES. ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF LAND. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 153A THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN DECLARING THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS 43 720/-. THE SEA RCH ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S. 153(A) OF THE ACT. IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD LAND AT SURVEY NUMBER 21/4 LOHAGOAN ON 11.11.1999 TO SRI ANIL KUMAR GUPTA AND THE SAME IS UNRECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE ACCURATELY. ASSESSE STATED THAT THE SAID TRANSATION WAS RECORDED IN THE BALANCE SHE ET AS LIABILITY INADVERTENTLY. A.O MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 2.55 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF SAID SALE OF LAND AND DID NOT GRANT THE DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THE LAND COST TOO . THE A.O. IS OF THE OPINION THAT INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT MATTER BUT THE FACT IS THAT THE INCOME WAS UNDER-STATED. A.O. INITIATED PENALTY IN THIS REGARD U/S. 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT TOO. ACCORDINGLY THE MINIMUM PENALTY AT THE RATE OF 100 % OF THE TAX OF CONCERNED ITA NO 224/PN/2009 C.P.SETHUMADHAVAN. A.Y.2000-01 PAGE OF 7 2 INCOME WORKS TO RS. 41 102/- WAS LEVIED VIDE THE OR DER DATED 31.3.2008. AGGRIEVED WITH THE SAID PENALTY THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). DURING THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ON THE QUANTUM ADDITIONS IN PRINCIPLE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION AND GRANTED RELIEF TO THE EXTENT OF TH E COST OF THE IMPUGNED PLOT OF LAND. AFTER THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINS THE ASS ESSED INCOME WORKS OUT TO RS 2 11 220/- AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS 43 715 /-. 3. DURING THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ON THE PENALTY MATTERS ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A CASE OF OMISSION TO INCLUDE RELEVANT INCOME IN THE RETURN. HOWEVER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASS ESSEES REPRESENTATIVE POINTED OUT THE NEED FOR INCLUSION OF THE SAID INCOME. FURT HER AS PER THE ASSESSEE ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE DISCLOSED. ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE AND DID NOT AGI TATE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. CIT(A) PERUSED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND UPHELD T HE DECISION OF THE A.O. 4. AGGRIEVED WITH THE SAME ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEA L BEFORE US. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS ESSENTIALLY LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE RELIED ON THE ARGUMENTS MADE BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND MADE SPECIAL REF ERENCE TO THE ASSESSEES INTENTION OF DISCLOSURE OF FACTS RELATING TO THE IM PUGNED TRANSACTIONS OF SALE TO SRI ANIL KUMAR GUPTA OMISSION OF INCLUDING THE SAID TR ANSACTION IN THE SALES ACCOUNT INADVERTENT INCLUSION IN THE LIABILITIES ACCOUNT POSSIBILITY OF SUCH OMISSION WHEN THERE EXISTS MANY SUCH LAND TRANSACTIONS BONA FIDE BELIEF OF THE ASSESSEE FACT OF DEALING WITH VOLUMINOUS DOCUMENTS SEIZED IN THE SEA RCH PREPARATION OF RETURN BASED ON THOSE DOCUMENTS ETC. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. D.R. FOR THE REVENUE RELI ED ON THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) AND A.O. IN PARTICULAR THE DR MENTIONED TH E FACT THAT THE INCOME OF RS 2 11 215/- WAS UNDERSTATED BY THE ASSESSEE AS EVIDE NT FROM THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. HE ALSO HIGHLIGHTED THE INACCURACY IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE RETURN OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HE EXPRESSED THE OPINION THE BY IMPROPERLY ACCOUNTING THE SALES OF LAND THE INACCURACY OF THE SALES ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD IS EXPOSED AND SO ARE THE LIABILITIES ACCOUNT STOCK ACCOUNT OF THE LAND. HE WAS ALSO CRI CITICAL OF THE ASSESSEE EXPLANATION OF BONA FIDE BELIEF CASE OF OMISSION VOLUMINOUS D OCUMENTS SEIZED IN THE SEARCH ETC. FINALLY THE DR IS OF THE VIEW THAT IT IS A F IT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. ITA NO 224/PN/2009 C.P.SETHUMADHAVAN. A.Y.2000-01 PAGE OF 7 3 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE O RDERS OF THE REVENUE AND EXPLANATIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR OPINION PARAS 3 TO 8 OF THE SAID EXPLANATION AS DETAILED IN ARE 4 OF THE IMPUGNED OR DER ARE RELEVANT FOR THE FACTS AS WELL AS SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE IR IMPORTANCE THE SAME ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 3. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF PURCHAS E AND SALES OF LAND. FOLLOWING THE SEARCH ACTION U/S 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ON 24.06.2003 THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURNS FOR SIX YEARS I.E. A.Y. 1998-99 TO 2003-04. THE ASSESSEE HAD OVER 450 SALE TRANSACTIONS DURING THE ABOVE PERIOD. OUT OF THESE ONE TRANSACTION RELATING TO LAND SOLD TO ONE MR. ANILKUMAR GUPTA FOR RS.255000 (COST OF THE PLOT RS. 87500) REMAINED TO BE INADVERTENTLY DECLARED AS SALE. THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 255000 RE CEIVED FROM MR. GUPTA WAS REFLECTED AS A LIABILITY IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND CORRESPONDING COST WAS REFLECTED AS STOCK IN TRADE. 4. THE OMISSION TO DECLARE THE SUBJECT TRANSACTION AS A SALE WAS NOTICED IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY THE ASSESSEES AR (AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE) AND POINTED OUT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TAXED THE ENTIRE SALE PROCEEDS OF RS. 255000 WITHOUT ALLOWING COST OF RS.87500 AS DEDUCTION. THIS WAS A LLOWED IN THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A). 5. IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) THE ASSESSE E POINTED OUT THAT ALL FACTUAL ASPECTS OF THE TRANSACTION WERE REFLECTED I N THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNTS. AN ERROR OCCURRED ON PART OF THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNT ANT WHEREBY THE TRANSACTION WAS NOT REFLECTED AS A SALE. NEVERTHEL ESS COMPLETE PARTICULARS WERE AVAILABLE ON RECORD TO ENABLE PROPER COMPUTATION OF INCOME. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE FAILURE TO DECLARE THE SALE AND CORRECT INCOME WAS ON ACCOUNT OF A BONA FIDE HUMAN ERROR ON THE PART OF THE ASSESEES ACCOUNT NOT WARRANTING LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C). 6. IN THE PENALTY ORDER THE A.O HAS REJECTED THE E XPLANATION ON GROUNDS THAT THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO INDICATE THAT THE MISTAKE WAS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEES AR AND THAT THE ERROR IN REFL ECTING SALE PROCEEDS APPEARING AS CREDITORS OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN NOTICED A S THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSISTED BY A CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT IN FILING HIS RE TURN. 7. WE SUBMIT THAT THE A.O HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES REASONABLY AND HAS TAKEN A HARSH VIEW OF AN ADMITTED ERROR OF OMISSION. 8. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMMITTED A WILLFUL DEFAULT. THE A.O HAS NOT FOUND THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION AS FALSE. IN THIS REGARD WE DRAW ATTENTION TO THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT MERE OMIS SION FROM THE RETURN OF AN ITEM OF RECEIPT DOES NEITHER AMOUNT TO CONCEALME NT NOR DELIBERATE FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME UNLE SS AND UNTIL THERE IS SOME EVIDENCE TO SHOW OR SOME CIRCUMSTANCES FOUND FROM W HICH IT CAN BE GATHERED THAT THE OMISSION WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO AN I NTENTION OR DESIRE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO HIDE OR THE CONCEAL THE INC OME SO AS TO AVOID THE IMPOSITION OF TAX THEREON. IN ORDER THAT A PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) MAY BE IMPOSED IT HAS TO BE PROVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSCIOUS LY MADE THE CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME K.C. BUILDERS VS ASSTT. CIT [2004] 265 ITR 562/135 TAXMAN 461(SC). 7. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACTS THAT THERE IS UNDER STATEMENT OF INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 153A OF THE AC T TO THE TUNE OF RS 1 67 500/-. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT. FURTHER CONSID ERING THE RATIO IN THE CASE OF CIT V. ITA NO 224/PN/2009 C.P.SETHUMADHAVAN. A.Y.2000-01 PAGE OF 7 4 RELIANCE PETRO-PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. 322 ITR 158 (SC) IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT EVERYTHING WOULD DEPEND UPON THE RETURN FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY DOCUMENT WHERE THE ASSESSEE CAN FURNISH TH E PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IN OTHER WORDS THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SUFFE RS FROM THE PROBLEM OF INACCURACY OF THE PARTICULARS. IN FACT BY NON INCLUSION OF TH E SAID INCOME OF RS 1 67 500/- ACCURACY OF THE PARTICULARS OF THE SALES ACCOUNT L AND STOCK ACCOUNT LIABILITIES ACCOUNT AND THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNTS ARE PUT TO TEST. INACCURACY OF THE SAID ACCOUNTS AND THE RESULTAT RETURN OF INCOME CANNOT B E HEALED BY THE DEBATING ON WHO FIRST DISCOVERED THE ISSUE AND IN OUR OPINION IT SHALL NOT PROVIDE ANY HEALING TOUCH TO THE ISSUE OF LEVY OF PENALTY. NOW THE ADD ITION OF THE SAID INCOME HAS ATTAINED FINALITY TOO. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IN OU R OPINION THE ONLY ISSUE THAT IS TO BE SEEN IS THE REASONS FOR SUCH AN INACCURACY OF IN COME PARTICULARS AND THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SUCH ACCURACY OF AC COUNTS AND RETURN. 8. THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATIONS REVOLVE AROUND THE B ONA FIDE BELIEF CASE OF OMISSION EVENT OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION AND PRESENCE OF VOLUMINOUS DATA AND THE DOCUMENTS ETC. WE HAVE EXAMINED THESE EXPLA NATIONS AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS FOR THE SAME. ORDINARILY IT IS THE RESPO NSIBILITY OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAINTAIN THE ACCURATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME WITH ACCURATE PARTICULARS. IT IS ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE A SSESSEE TO DECLARE THE CORRECT INCOME OF THE YEAR WITH OR WITHOUT THE EVENT OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION. IN SEARCH CASES LIKE THE PRESENT ASSESSEE THE SAID RESPONSIBILITY IS MORE AS THERE EXISTS THE DISCOVERY OF CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS AND THE ASS ESSEE HAS TO COME OUT WITH THE TRUE AND FULL DISCLOSURE OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IN THIS CASE THERE IS INACCURACY OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS 1 67 500/- MENTIONED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WHICH IS FILED U/S 153A OF THE ACT IE AFTER THE EVE NT TO SEARCH ACTION ON THE ASSESSEE. IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE ABOVE FACTS WE HAVE EXAMI NED THE STRENGTH OF THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION WHICH REVOLVE AROUND BONA FI DE BELIEF CASE OF OMISSION ETC. WE HAVE EXAMINED IF SUCH BLAND EXPLANATION WHICH IS GENERALIZED EXPLANATION AND UNSUPPORTED BY THE FACTS WILL PROVIDE IMMUNITY TO T HE ASSESSEES INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND MORE SO WHEN THE UNDERST ATEMENT OF INCOME IS OBVIOUS AND UNDISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND MORE SO WHEN THE RE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF MENS REA AS HELD BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DHARA MENDRA TEXTILES PROCESSORS 306 ITR 277 (SC). IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE RECORDS T HAT THE EXPLANATION OF BONA FIDE BELIEF CASE OF OMISSION ETC ARE NOT DEMONSTRATED W ITH EVIDENCES AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE TO BE CATEGORIZED AS OF VERY GENERAL NATURE. IN ANY CASE WILFUL CONCEALMENT IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT FOR ATTRACTING CIVIL LIABILITY SUCH A PENALTY U/S 271(1 )(C). THE ABOVE VIEW IS FORTIFIED BY ITA NO 224/PN/2009 C.P.SETHUMADHAVAN. A.Y.2000-01 PAGE OF 7 5 THE APEX COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF UNION OF IND IA VS DHARAMENDRA TEXTILES PROCESSORS 306 ITR 277 (SC) OR 174 TAXMANN 571(SC). THIS JUDGMENT HAS DISAPPROVED THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF DILIP N SHR OFF (161 TAXMANN 218) (SC) TOO. THE GISTS OF THE SAID JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF M/S D HARAMENDRA TEXTILES PROCESSORS (SUPRA) AND RELEVANT PARAGRAPHS ARE AS UNDER. ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO MENS REA IN PROVISIONS OF PENALTIES IS NOT A CASE OF CASUS OMISUS . IN FACT THE PROVISIONS WITH EXPRESSION LIABLE T O PAY PENALTY BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION BE SAID THAT THE ADJUDICATI NG AUTHORITY HAS EVEN A DISCRETION TO LEVY LESS THAN WHAT IS LEGALLY AD STATUTORILY LEVIA BLE (PARA 12). IT IS A WELL-SETTLED PRINCIPLES IN LAW THAT THE CO URT CANNOT READ ANYTHING INTO A STATUTORY PROVISION OR A STIPULATED CONDITION WHICH IS PLAIN AND UNAMBIGUOUS. A STATUTE IS A DETERMINATIVE FACTOR OF THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT (P ARA 13). IT IS SIGNIFICANCE TO NOTE THAT THE CONCEPTUAL AND CONTEXTUAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SECTION 271(1) AND SECTION 276C WAS LOST SIGHT OF IN DILIP N SHROFFS CASE (PARA 24) THE EXPLANATIONS APPENDED TO SECTION 271(1)(C) ENTI RELY INDICATE THE ELEMENT OF STRICT LIABILITY ON THE ASSESSEE FOR CONCEALMENT OR FOR GIVING INAC CURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WHILE FILING RETURN. THE JUDGMENT IN DILIP N SHROFFS CASE (SUPRA) HAD NOT CONSIDERED THE EFFECT AD RELEVANCE OF SECTION 276C. OBJECT BEHIND ENACTMENT OF SECTION 271(1)(C) READ WITH THE EXPLANATIONS THERE TO INDICATES THAT THE SAID SECTION HAS BEEN ENACTED TO PROVIDE FOR A REMEDY FOR LOSS OF REVENUE. THE PENALTY UNDER THAT PROVISION IS A CIVIL LIABILITY. WILFUL CONCEALMENT IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT FOR ATTRACTING CIVIL LIABILITY AS IS THE CASE IN THE M ATTER OF PROSECUTION UNDER SECTION 276C (PARA 25). 9. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF LEARNED COUNSEL THAT HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF UNION OF INDIA VS. RAJ ASTHAN SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS (224 CTR 1 (SC) HELD THAT THERE IS NO RULE TH AT THE RATIO OF JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS. DHARMENDRA TE XTILES PROCESSORS AND OTHERS (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC) SHOULD BE APPLIED IN EACH A ND EVERY CASE. WE HAVE ALSO NOTICED THE FACT THAT THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF DHARMENDRA TEXTILES PROCESSORS AND OTHERS (SUPRA) ARE NOT SUPERSEDED AN D IN FACT THE PRINCIPLES LEID DOWN ARE REITERATED IN VARIOUS OTHER JUDGMENTS SUCH AS CIT VS. ATUL MOHAN BINDAL (2009) 317 ITR 1 (SC). WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE HEL D PORTION OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF C IT V. RELIANCE PETRO-PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. 322 ITR 15 8 (SC) AND FOUND SOME PARTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE REPRODUCED FOR THE SA KE OF COMPLETENESS AND THEY READ AS FOLLOWS. A GLANCE AT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) O F THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 SUGGESTS THAT IN ORDER TO BE COVERED BY IT THERE H AS TO BE CONCEALMENT OF THE PARTICULARS OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SECONDLY THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. THE MEANING OF THE WORD PARTICULARS USED IN SECTION 271(1)(C) WOULD EMBRA CE THE DETAILS OF THE CLAIM MADE. WHERE NO INFORMATION GIVEN IN THE RETURN IS FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR INACCURATE THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD GUILTY OF F URNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IN ORDER TO EXPOSE THE ASSESSEE TO PENALTY UNLESS THE CASE IS STRICTLY COVERED BY THE PROVISION THE PENALTY PROVISION CANNOT BE INVOKED.. . TH ERE CAN BE NO DISPUTE THAT EVERYTHING WOULD DEPEND UPON THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY DOCUMENT WHERE THE ASSESSE E CAN FURNISH THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME . WHEN SUCH PARTICULARS ARE FOUND TO BE ITA NO 224/PN/2009 C.P.SETHUMADHAVAN. A.Y.2000-01 PAGE OF 7 6 INACCURATE THE LIABILITY WOULD ARISE. TO ATTRACT PENALTY THE DETAILS SUPPLIED IN THE RETURN MUST NOT BE ACCURATE NOT EXACT OR CORRE CT NOT ACCORDING TO THE TRUTH OR ERRONEOUS. 10. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE LEGAL POSITION WE FIND T HAT (I) VARIOUS ACCOUNTS IN THE LEDGER IE SALES ACCOUNT STOCK ACCOUNT LIABILITIES ACCOUNT (II) THE BALANCE SHEET FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD (III) THE RETURN OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE SUFFERS FROM DEFAULT OF INACCURACY OF PARTICULARS. IT IS THE LAW OF THE LAN D THAT TO ATTRACT PENALTY THE DETAILS SUPPLIED IN THE RETURN MUST NOT BE ACCURATE NOT EX ACT OR CORRECT NOT ACCORDING TO THE TRUTH OR ERRONEOUS. THE ISSUE WHICH IS TO BE DECIDED BY US IS IF THE PA RTICULARS MENTIONED IN THE RETURN ARE ACCURATE OR INACCURATE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTUAL MATRIX WE ARE OF THE OPINION THE INACCURACY OF TH E PARTICULARS OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS EVIDENT AND OBVIOUS IN THE RETURN OF IN COME AND THEREFORE THE DETAILS SUPPLIED IN THE RETURN ARE NOT ACCURATE NOT EXACT OR NOT CORRECT AND HENCE THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE CERTAINLY ATTRACTS PENAL PROVISIONS IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SAID LEGAL POSITION. AS DISCUSSED EARLIER THE WILFUL CONCEALMENT IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT FOR ATTRACTING CIVIL LIABILITY SUCH A PENALTY U/S 2 71(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND MERE CONCEALMENT IS SUFFICIENT TO ATTRACT THE PENALTY. F URTHER THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE WITH DETAILS THAT IT IS CASE OF BONA FIDE BELIEF OR A CASE OF OMISSION TO DECLARE ACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. MERELY STAT ING THAT THE SAID INACCURACY CONSTITUTE A CASE OF OMISSION AND IS A CASE OF BONA FIDE BELIEF IS NOT ENOUGH IN THE CASE LIKE THIS WHICH IS COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 132 OF THE ACT AND THERE IS DISCOVERY FACTS BY THE REVENUE. THEREFORE WE AR E OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT PRESENT CASE IS A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THUS WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DOES NOT CA LL FOR INTERFERENCE. THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED . 11. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH AUGUST 2010 SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER (D. KARUNAKARA RAO ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE DATED THE 13TH AUGUST 2010 US ITA NO 224/PN/2009 C.P.SETHUMADHAVAN. A.Y.2000-01 PAGE OF 7 7 COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE DEPARTMENT 3. THE CIT CENTRAL PUNE 4. THE CIT(A)-I PUNE 4. THE D.R. A BENCH PUNE 5. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE