Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 1045 - AT - Income TaxPenalty levied under section 271(1)(c) - addition on account of credits appearing Bank accounts of six persons - Held that:- No doubt here in of the assessee’s case, what was finally assessed, except for assessment year 2006-07 was higher than the income returned in the return filed pursuant to notice under section 153A of the Act. For assessment year 2007-08, such difference was only due to correction of mistakes in calculation of deposits and credits in the Bank accounts, which was offered by the assessee himself. For assessment year 2009-10, the difference was due to the addition of deposits in the account of Mrs. Rina Sinha, for undisclosed share application money, for alleged sale of shares of M/s. Bangla Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., and clubbing of minor’s income. Of these. credits in the bank account of Mrs. Rina Sinha, was voluntarily offered by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. In the case before us there was no survey or search at any place, prior to the disclosure of the bank accounts in the name of five persons as his own by the assessee on 28.01.2010. There was only an enquiry in progress on such accounts by the Department. Well before any notice was issued by the Department, assessee had come up with his disclosure and filed an affidavit before DDI(Investigation). Even Explanation (1) to Section 271(1)(c) could not have been applied on the assessee since assessee had offered explanation and furnished all particulars of the income disclosed by him. As already mentioned by us, particulars of every item of income offered by the assessee and added by the Assessing Officer is clearly available in the assessment order for assessment year 2009-10, wherein Assessing Officer has elaborately analyzed the information and particulars given by the assessee, as to how the credits in various bank accounts had come in. None of such explanation given by the assessee were found to be untrue or incorrect.- Decided in favour of assessee Penalty under section 271AAA - Held that:- The income finally computed by the Assessing Officer was less than the sum of ₹ 3,00,00,000/- declared by the assessee prior to the search in his letter dated 28.01.2010addressed to the DDIT(Investigation). In the notice issued under section 271AAA for levy of penalty, (paper book page no.22) Assessing Officer stated that assessee had not satisfied the conditions mentioned in sub-section 2 of Section 271AAA of the Act. However, in the penalty order he stated that assessee had concealed his income knowingly and intentionally in the return of income filed before the search. However, for assessment year 2010-11, the return was filed by the assessee on 02.10.2010, which was after the date of search. Levy of penalty under section 271AAA was for a different reason than the one mentioned in the notice. Ld. CIT(Appeals) on the other hand observed that assessee did not satisfy the condition mentioned in sub-section 2 of Section 271AAA. None of the lower authorities could point out which condition assessee had not satisfied. Assessee had in the statement taken from him under section 132(4) of the Act admitted the undisclosed income arising out of the deposits in the Bank accounts of five persons. In the assessment order for assessment year 2009-10, Assessing Officer himself has clearly mentioned elaborately at pages 2 to 14 of his order as to how the amounts came into the accounts of the benamis of the assessee. That the detailed information with regard to these transactions resulting in the credits in the Bank accounts were given by the assessee himself, is mentioned by the Assessing Officer. Thus levy of penalty under section 271AAA could not have been fastened on the assessee - Decided in favour of assessee
|