9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 484X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the impugned order passed by the tribunal. Subsequently, affidavit of Sarad Jain was filed on 15th May, 2009 wherein the undisclosed income of Rs.20 crores was duly maintained and accepted. The disclosure was bifurcated into Rs.7.50 crores, as on account of discrepancies in inventory prepared at the business premises of M/s Gupta and Company Private Limited. Rs.12.50 crores was disclosed as income earned through joint enterprise of Virendara Kumar Gupta, Sarad Jain and Sudhir Jain, described as "Sugandh Sansar" in terms of agreement dated 9th January, 1998. 2. The "Sugandh Sansar" as an Association of Persons (AOP) filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2009-10 on 30th October, 2009 declaring income of Rs.11 crores under the h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered income of Rs.12.5 crore belongs to the members individually and not to the AOP hence, no different view can be taken in the case of AOP by taxing the same amount again on the ground that the assessee himself had originally filed the return offering the surrendered amount in the hands of AOP. Hence the 2nd revised return filed by the assessee on 08.01.2011 requires consideration. The revisional powers of the Commissioner u/s 264 of the Income Tax Act 1961, has all the trappings of a judicial power. Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Aparna Ashram vs Director of Income Tax (258 ITR 401), after relying upon the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Dwarka Nath vs ITO (57 ITR 349) have held that the jurisdiction conferred u/s 264 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered in the hands of members then the relief may also be granted to the assessee with respect to self assessment tax of Rs.1,58,68,8401- and the same be considered in the hands of all the 03 members of AOP equally as self assessment tax paid by them with respect to the surrendered amount of Rs.12.5 crore. 8. In view of the fact that the appeals in the individual cases of the members of the AOP namely Shri V.K. Gupta, Shri Sudhir Jain and Shri Sharad Jain are still pending before CIT(A), the assessee was asked to clarify its position with regard to these appeals. The assessee has filed an undertaking from all the three members of the AOP pointing out that the appeal have been filed against the additions made of the same amount which had bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ain. Initially, the AOP had declared the entire undisclosed income. AOPs are taxed at maximum marginal rate, whereas individuals are taxed on cascading scale. The Assessing Officer had himself given tax credit to individual members of the tax paid by AOP. AOP consisted of three persons, including the present respondent-assessee. The tribunal has taken a realistic and pragmatic view and accordingly deleted the penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act noticing the factual matrix. "Sugandh Sansar" had filed "nil" return of income only after the Assessing Officer had decided that Rs.12.5 crores should be equally divided and taxed in the hands of Virendara Kumar Gupta, Sarad Jain and Sudhir Jain. The three assessees had filed appeals before the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
