When a taxpayer voluntarily files a revised return that is accepted by the authorities, and the final assessed income matches the revised returned income, no penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars can be imposed, provided no evidence exists that initial details were intentionally false or erroneous.

ORDER

PER : RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM

Both these appeals have been filed by the assessee against two different orders of the ld. CIT(A), Jaipur -4 both dated 16-10-2024 for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2014-15 in the matter of confirming penalty u/s 271(1) (c ) of the Act 1961, raising therein following grounds of appeal;

ITA No. 1453/JPR/2024 – A.Y. 2012-13

1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in not accepting the plea of the appellant that the proceedings initiated by the ld. AO for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 and consequent penalty of Rs 4,04,481 imposed by him is wrong and bad in law.

2. That without prejudice to the ground No. (1) above on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in confirming penalty of Rs. 4,04,481/- imposed by the learned AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961.

ITA No. 1454/JPR/2024 – A.Y. 2014-15

1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in not accepting the plea of the appellant that the proceedings initiated by the ld. AO for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 and consequent penalty of Rs 2,79,985/- imposed by him is wrong and bad in law.

2. That without prejudice to the ground No. (1) above on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in confirming penalty of Rs 2,79,985/- - imposed by the learned AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961.

2. First of all, we take up the appeal of the assessee for adjudication relating to assessment year 2012-13 wherein brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure action u/s 132(1) of the Act was carried out on 5-02-2015 in the case of Bundi Silica Group, Kota to which the assessee belongs. It is noted that the AO issued a notice u/s 153 of the Act to the assessee on 13-05-2015. In response to the notice, the assessee filed its return of income on 08-06-2015 for the Assessment Year 2012-13 declaring a total income at Rs.92,85,050/-. The assessee filed its revised return of income on 19-10-2015 for the assessment year 2012-13 declaring a total income at Rs.1,05,94,050/-. Thus, the AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A vide order dated 28-12-2016 at a total income of Rs.1,40,62,140/-. Further, the order u/s 154 of the Act was also made on 25-09-2017 and the income was assessed at Rs.1,61,76,089/- by making additions on account of disallowance of unabsorbed depreciation.

The assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)-4, Jaipur which was disposed off vide order 04-04-2018 by the ld. CIT(A). After giving the effect of the above order, the assessed income was reduced to Rs.1,05,94,050/- which was as declared in the revised return of income filed on 19.10.2015. Since, there was change in the return of income originally filed and thereafter subsequently declared at higher amount by way of revised return of income ld. AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide notice dated 28-12-2016 in the case of the assessee. The same finds mentioned at page 2 of the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) dated 23-03-2020. Finally, the AO imposed penalty of Rs.4,04,481/- u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act giving following narration in his order dated 23-03-2020;

‘’9.1 In view of the above discussion, it is hereby held that the assessee has altogether failed to establish that penalty u/s 271(1)© is not leviable in this case. Therefore, I am satisfied that the assessee had concealed income to the tune of Rs.