IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
         ITA 25/2010  
 . 
 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX                 ..... Appellant 
 Through: Ms. P.L. Bansal with Mr. Paras Chaudhary and 
 Mr. Anshul Sharma, Advocates 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 Versus 
 . 
 MICRO COMPUTER SERVICES                    ..... Respondent 
 Through: None. 
 CORAM: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED 
 HON?BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 
 . 
 O R D E R 
                                             13.01.2010 
 . 
 This is an appeal against the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 
 dated 10th February, 2009 passed in ITA No.4313/Del/2007 in respect of 
 assessment year 2003-04. 
 The question before the Tribunal was with regard to the imposition of 
 penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.  An amount of 
 Rs.1,25,00,000/- was surrendered by the assessee during a survey operation out 
 of which an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- pertained to the current assessment year, 
 namely, 2003-04. The assessing officer imposed a penalty of Rs.7,35,000/-. The 
 same was deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as by the 
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by virtue of the impugned order dated 27th March, 
 2010. 
 . 
 ITA 25/2010 
 Page 1 of 2 
 After considering the contentions raised on behalf of the parties, the 
 Tribunal concluded as under:- 
 ?We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record.  We 
 find merit in the argument of learned counsel for the assessee.  The assessee 
 did not accept that purchases were not genuine, offer was made, as the vouchers 
 are not traceable.  Assessee offered the amount to buy peace, obeyed the same 
 and paid the taxes.  Books of account of the assessee have not been rejected. 
 AO has not brought on record any further material to prove the charge of 
 concealment of income except relying on statement of assessee.  If at all 
 statement of the assessee is to be believed in totality, which includes the 
 deposition that the expenses are genuine but the offer is made for want of 
 vouchers. If the AO wanted to go beyond the statement of the assessee he could 
 have independently proven the falsity of the expenditure or should have rejected 
 the books of account. Having not done so and relied on the statement partly, 
 cannot be basis of penalty u/s 271 (1)(c).  Since the AO failed to establish 
 that particulars of income were false or income was concealed, order of CIT(A) 
 cannot be found fault with.  The same is upheld?. 
 . 
 We see no reason to interfere with the aforesaid finding because they are 
 in the nature of findings of fact. No substantial question of law arises for our 
 consideration.  The appeal is dismissed. 
 . 
 BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J 
 JANUARY 13, 2010 
 gsr 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 ITA 25/2010 
 Page 1 of 2 
 . 
 . 
 6