Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 187 - ITAT MUMBAIPenalty levied u/s 158BFA(2) - Difference in remuneration received - ₹ 9.00 lakhs - CIT(A) deleted penalty levy - Held that:- Tribunal has considered all the submissions made by the assessee, the seized material, surrounding circumstances, conduct of the assessee’s father who maintained the record and finally has given a finding that the remuneration was ₹ 36.00 lakhs. Under these set of facts, we are unable to agree with the contention of the Ld A.R as well as with the view expressed by Ld CIT(A) that the addition of ₹ 9.00 lakhs has been sustained on estimate basis. In our view, the above said addition has been sustained on the basis of seized material only. Hence, we are of the view that the assessing officer was justified in levying penalty on the above said addition u/s 158BFA(2) of the Act. - Decided in favour of revenue. Unaccounted expenditure on renovation of flat of ₹ 5.00 lakhs - Held that:- Tribunal has given a finding that there were overlapping in the seized materials wherein the items of work were found noted. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has estimated the amount spent on interior works of three flats at ₹ 40.00 lakhs and thus sustained the addition to the extent of ₹ 5.00 lakhs. Hence, we agree with the view expressed by Ld CIT(A) on this addition that the Tribunal has sustained the addition on estimate basis and the Tribunal could not come a conclusion from the seized material that there was undisclosed income in incurring interior decoration works. Hence, in respect of this issue, we agree with the Ld CIT(A) and accordingly hold that the first appellate authority was justified in directing the assessing officer to delete the penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|