Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Shri Ajay Engicon (P) Ltd. Versus ACIT, Range-1, Ranchi

2015 (11) TMI 753 - ITAT RANCHI

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - addition on account of ingenuine share application received - Held that:- We find that in the instant case, the Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income / submission of inaccurate particulars of income on the amount of addition of ₹ 90 Lac claimed to have been received as share application by the assessee. The addition made was confirmed by the Tribunal in appeal filed before it by the assessee. We find .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d 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. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 93/Ran/2013 - Dated:- 27-10-2015 - N. S. Saini, AM And George Mathan, JM For the Petitioner : Shri V K Jalan - FCA For the Respondent : Shri Deepak Roushan - Sr. SC ORDER Per N S Saini, Accountant Member This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ranchi, dated .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

fficer did not accept the share application money as claimed to have been received by the assessee as genuine and, therefore made the addition of ₹ 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 addit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e had no valid explanation in regard to source of increase in share capital for ₹ 90 Lac in the names of Sri Mathura Prasad Singh (HUF), Sri Ajay Suman, Sri Sanjay Suman & Sri Vijay Singh. 8. The Authorized Representative of the assessee vehemently arguing and assailing the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) submitted that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shree Nirmal Commercial Ltd. vs. CIT reported in - 2008-TIOL-426-HC-MUM-IT while deciding the followi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Similarly, in the reassessment for the A.Y. 1967-68 the amount of ₹ 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 t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y and others reported in - 2013-TIOL-536-HC-KAR-IT and submitted that the Hon'ble High Court held that if the explanation offered, even though not substantiated by the assessee, but is found to be bonafide and all facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his total income have been disclosed by him, no penalty could be imposed. 10. On the other hand, Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 11. We find that in the instant case, the Assess .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

an be levied where the income is assessed under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. We also find that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factor, Ballary (supra) has held that if the explanation offered by the assessee, even though not substantiated, but 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 tha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version