TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 569X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ultivator in the revenue record. Thus, its claim was not false. The AO has nowhere recorded any finding that the assessee has furnished any inaccurate particulars of its income. The only area of dispute between the AO and the assessee is that the assessee failed to substantiate its claim of agriculture income with the help of supporting evidence. But the claim was not found to be false, because the assessee is the owner and in possession of huge tract of agriculture land. The income of the assessee has been estimated. The AO cold have estimated the generation of agriculture income to this extent, out of such huge tract of agriculture land. Therefore, to our mind, the assessee does not deserve to be visited with the penalty under section 271 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ahmedabad. Survey under section 133A was also conducted in respect of few premises of this group. During the course of search action various documents and books of accounts were found and seized. At the premises of Shri Bholabhai V. Patel certain documents were found exhibiting the escapement of income in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, after recording satisfaction, incriminating materials were transmitted to the AO having jurisdiction over the assessee. The AO had issued notice under section 153C r.w.s. 153A(1)(b). In response to this notice, it was contended by the assessee that the returns filed by it under section 139(1) of the I.T.Act within the due date prescribed under the Act may be treated as filed in response to this notice. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed penalty of ₹ 45,965/-, ₹ 48,685/-, ₹ 30,987/-, ₹ 65,640/-, ₹ 80,863/-, ₹ 67,320 and ₹ 1,00,980 in the Asstt.Years 2001-02 to 2007-08 respectively. 9. Appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 10. On perusal of the impugned orders, we find that the assessee has contended before the AO as under: 1. The additions are estimation on other income instead of agri. income. 2. The assessee has already produced the agricultural landownership 7/12, utara etc. at the time of Asstt. 3. The additions are technical basis from free income to taxable income. 4. The addition on estimation basis and/or estimation basis are debatable issue. Which are not subject matt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accurate particulars of such income or fringe benefits: Explanation 1- Where in respect of any facts material to the computation of the total income of any person under this Act, (A) Such person fails to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found by the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the CIT to be false, or (B) such person offers an explanation which he is not able to substantiate and fails to prove that such explanation is bona fide and that all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his total income have been disclosed by him, then, the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income or such person as a result thereof shall, for the purposes of Cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of total income under the provisions of the Act, the assessee is not able to substantiate the explanation and the assessee fails, to prove that such explanation is bona fide and that the assessee had disclosed all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of the total income. Under first situation, the deeming fiction would come to play if the assessee failed to give any explanation with respect to any fact material to the computation of total income or by action of the Assessing Officer or the Learned CIT(Appeals) by giving a categorical finding to the effect that explanation given by the assessee is false. In the second situation, the deeming fiction would come to play by the failure of the assessee to substanti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to substantiate its claim of agriculture income with the help of supporting evidence. But the claim was not found to be false, because the assessee is the owner and in possession of huge tract of agriculture land. The income of the assessee has been estimated. The AO cold have estimated the generation of agriculture income to this extent, out of such huge tract of agriculture land. Therefore, to our mind, the assessee does not deserve to be visited with the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, and we delete penalty of ₹ 45,965/-, ₹ 48,685/-, ₹ 30,987/-, ₹ 65,640/-, ₹ 80,863/-, ₹ 67,320 and ₹ 1,00,980 in the Asstt.Years 2001-02 to 2007-08 respectively and allow the appeals of the assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
