IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील स.ं /ITA No.36/SRT/2024 Assessment Year: (2015-16)

(Hybrid hearing)

M/s Khodiyar Organisers, Vs. ACIT, Central Plaza, Near Om Terrace, Circle – 2(3), New City Light Road, Surat – Surat

395007, Gujarat èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AAKFK1498A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by Shri P. M. Jagasheth, CA Respondent by Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 21/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement 13/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM:

This appeal by the assessee emanates from the order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘in short, the Act’) dated 27.12.2023 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) - 11, Ahmedabad [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AY) 2015-16.

2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of levying penalty of Rs.32,30,543/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961.

2. It is, therefore, prayed that the above addition may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it proper.

3. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of the appeal.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 29.09.2015 for AY 2015-16, declaring total income of Rs.19,44,960/-. There was a survey u/s 133A of the Act on 20.01.2016, during the course of which the partner of the firm admitted on-money of Rs.93,27,575/- and disclosed the same for taxation. Subsequently, the assessee filed its revised income on 29.02.2016, declaring total income of Rs.1,12,72,540/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. After hearing the assessee, order u/s 143(2) of the Act was passed on 29.09.2017, accepting the income as per the revised return. However, the Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) initiated penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of Rs.93,27,575/-.

4. During the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the appellant submitted that it had filed revised return of income on 20.02.2016 much before the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 20.09.2016. The appellant had voluntarily filed its revised return of income and paid taxes with the interest on the revised income. The AO has not made any addition. The appellant had relied on various decisions, but the AO did not accept the claim of assessee by observing that the on-money disclosed over and above the regular income in the revised returned income means assessee had deliberately concealed such income and admitted the same during survey u/s 133A of the Act. Accordingly, the AO levied penalty of Rs.32,30,543/- u/s

271(1)(c) of the Act on 19.03.2018.

5. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). During appellate proceedings, it was observed by CIT(A) that appellant had filed revised return of income in pursuance of survey proceedings, declaring income of Rs.1,12,72,540/-, wherein he disclosed additional unaccounted income of Rs.93,27,575/-. It was held that if survey proceedings u/s 133A of the Act had not been conducted by the department, the appellant would not have disclosed any additional unaccounted income. Thus, it was concluded that the appellant had disclosed additional unaccounted income, consequent upon the incriminating documents related to ‘on money’ receipt found during the course of survey proceedings. The CIT(A) has relied on the following decision, viz., Snita Transport Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, 42 taxmann.com 54 (Guj.), AM Shah & Co. vs. CIT, 238 ITR 415 (Guj.), Bharatkumar G. Rajani vs. DCIT, 40 taxman.com 344 (Guj.), CIT vs. Vidyagauri Natvartlal, 238 ITR 91 (Guj.), Chemmanchery Estate Co. vs. ITO, 111 taxmann.com 66 (Mad.) and CIT vs. N. Jayprakash, 99 taxman