TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 840X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had been accepted by the Assessing Officer. The share capital and the unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 12,23,100/- declared by the assessee in the revised return has also been accepted. Moreover, decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Stellar Investments Ltd. [2000 (7) TMI 76 - SUPREME Court] and CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. 2008 (1) TMI 575 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], the subscription made by the various shareholders in the share capital of a company cannot be taxed at the hand of the company and can only be taxed at the hands of the shareholder under Section 69 of the Act. Failure of the assessee in proving the capacity of the various shareholders to invest in the share capital, could not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te Tribunal was legally correct in holding that a revised return of income was filed by the assessee after entering into some kind of agreement with the Assessing Officer and that, therefore, there was no question of any concealment of income or particulars on the part of the assessee for which penalty could be levied?" Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows: - The respondent assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Single Super Phosphate Fertilizer. The appeal relates to the Assessment Year 1989-90 which is the first year of assessment. For the assessment year in question, the assessee filed his return of income on 30.12.1989 showing a loss of Rs. 2,23, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cepted by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 31.3.1992. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated and vide order dated 25.9.1992, he imposed penalty of Rs. 4,25,000/- on the ground that the assessee had concealed it's income to the extent of the share capital and unsecured loans surrendered in the revised return. The appeal preferred by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was dismissed vide order dated 8.3.1994. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee preferred a second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order, allowed the appeal by holding as follows: - "7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions facts and circumstances and the documents filed before us by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pra submitted that the revised return filed by the assessee was no return in the eyes of law as it was filed beyond the stipulated period and further, during the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had made inquiries and found the confirmatory letters defective on certain points, thus, the concealment of income was writ large, forcing the respondent - assessee to surrender the said amount. The assessee filed a revised return and therefore, cannot be absolved from paying the penalty. The submission is wholly misconceived. The revised return had been acted upon by the Assessing Authority and in fact, the loss of Rs. 13,87,540/- declared by the assessee in the revised return filed on 24.3.1992, had been accepted in to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
