AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. - (1.) THIS appeal under S. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") has been filed by the assessee against the order dt. 26th Nov., 2007, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Chandigarh Bench 'A', Chandigarh (in short "the Tribunal") in ITA No. 191/Chd/2007, relating to the asst. yr. 2003-04.
(2.) THE following substantial question of law has been claimed for determination of this Court : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was right in law in setting aside the order of the CIT(A), and restoring the order of the AO whereby penalty of Rs. 78,750 has been imposed by the AO in spite of the fact that no concealment has been found by the AO at the time of survey as well as scrutiny and further the said amount has been voluntarily declared by the assessee. ?" The facts, in brief, necessary for adjudication as narrated in the appeal, are that during a survey under s. 133A of the Act carried out at the business premises of M/s Cossets Marketing (P) Ltd., on 28th Feb., 2003, some discrepancies were detected in the record and some incriminating documents were found. From the documents, it was found that the aforesaid company had been paying a handsome commission and incentives to its directors and family members. Rohit Khanna, the managing director of the company, who is the husband of the assessee, on being asked to explain the above discrepancies, gave an undertaking in writing on 12th March, 2003 to get an additional amount of Rs. 90,00,000 surrendered from 14 persons, including Rs. 2,50,000 from his wife, i.e. the present assessee, subject to the condition that no penal action would be initiated against them.
(3.) THE case of the assessee was later on selected for compulsory scrutiny under S. 143(3) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee had not declared any additional amount in the return of her income for the asst. yr. 2003-04. The assessee, however, agreed to pay income-tax on the amount of additional income, alongwith interest under S. 234B of the Act, subject to no penal action against her. The AO did not agree with the submissions made on behalf of the assessee and made addition of an amount of Rs. 2,70,000 vide order dt. 8th March, 2006, besides ordering for charging interest thereon, under S. 234B and initiating penalty proceedings under S. 271(1)(c) of the Act.;