9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 753X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns and perused the orders of the lower authorities and the materials available on record. The undisputed facts of the case are that the assessee claimed to have been received share application money of Rs. 90 Lac. The Assessing Officer did not accept the share application money as claimed to have been received by the assessee as genuine and, therefore made the addition of Rs. 90 Lac to the income of the assessee. 4. The assessee being aggrieved by the said order of the Assessing Officer filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who also confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 5. Being further aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal also confirmed the addition on account of share ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 68 the amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- was treated as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. The assessee at no point of time has admitted that the income treated by the authorities for A.Y. 1996- 97 and A.Y. 1967-68 as income from undisclosed sources is concealed income. The ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Poona Vs. Bhimji Bhanjee and Co. (supra), therefore, squarely applied to the facts of the instance case and we do not find any hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the Income Tax Authorities who have assessed the income of the assessee for A.Y. 1966-67 and A.Y. 1967-68 under section 68 of the I.T. Act ought not to have levied any penalty under section 271(1)(c) of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is found to be bonafide and all facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his total income has been disclosed by him, no penalty could be imposed. 12. We further find that the assessee has filed before us an order of the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in the case of Ajay Engicon Private Ltd. vs. DCIT in Tax Appeal No. 25/2010 order dated 09/09/2011 by which the Hon'ble High Court has admitted the appeal of the assessee against the order of the Tribunal confirming the addition of share capital of Rs. 90 Lac. 13. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Liquid Investment Ltd. vide its order dated 05/10/2010 in ITA No. 240/09 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
