TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 816X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment does not by itself justify the imposition of penalty for concealment - the amounts involved in the AY 2006-07 and 2007-08 are very meager, there was no justification for the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act – the order of the CIT(A) is set aside – Decided in favour of Assessee. - ITA No. 1666/Hyd/13, ITA No.1667/Hyd/13, ITA No.1668/Hyd/13 - - - Dated:- 7-5-2014 - Shri B. Ramakotaiah And Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri S. Rama Rao For the Respondent : Smt. K. Haritha DR ORDER Per Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan, Judicial Member: These three appeals by the assessee are directed against similar but separate orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) III, Hyderabad dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty notices, it was explained by the assessee that the incomes assessed by the Assessing Officer was already embedded in the real estate income offered by him in his returns of income. It was further submitted that the assessee had accepted the additions made in order to avoid prolonged litigation. Not finding merit in these contentions of the assessee, observing that the assessee had never filed the returns of income, and it is only due to search and seizure operations that the assessee has filed his returns offering meager amounts of income for assessment for the years under appeal, and that during the assessment proceedings the undisclosed income of the assessee was quantified and assessed to tax, the Assessing Officer rejecting the expl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 06-07 and 2007-08, the source of income is salary income. The assessee has already offered the income under the head real estate and admitted an income of Rs.86,000 for the assessment year 2005-06. The Assessing Officer has however, determined the income at Rs.2,66,030, by adding a sum of Rs.1,82,034 on account of purchase and sale of properties. While doing so, the Assessing Officer has not considered any expenditure as allowable deduction. The assessee has offered the net income at Rs.86,000 and hence, the Assessing Officer is not justified in making the addition separately. Further, it is the plea of the assessee that the lands purchased are agricultural lands situated beyond 8 KMs and hence, assessee was under a bona fide belief that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
