Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 859 - ITAT MUMBAIPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - bogus purchase found during search - relevant limb under which penalty has been levied has not been struck off in the notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) - admission of additional evidences - Held that:- Even if the assessee subsequently discloses the income in any return of income furnished afterwards has been specified to be of no consequence. Hence subsequent disclosure or nondisclosure of income in any return of income furnished subsequently has been specifically referred to be of no consequence. Thus as per a specific provision of explanation 5A assessee has been found to be owner of undisclosed income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, based upon entry of bogus purchases in its books of account. - the orders of the learned CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty on merits is sustained and affirmed. Validity of notice issued for levy of penalty - additional evidence - Held that:- In the original ground, the assessee has only contended that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). This, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be covering the additional ground now being raised by the ld. Counsel of the assessee. Be that as it may, we find that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had never an opportunity to give a finding on this aspect now being raised by the assessee. Hence, on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of justice, we remit this issue to the file of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) shall give a finding on this additional ground being now raised by the ld. Counsel of the assessee after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
|