TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Settlement Commission. Thus, it was held that double addition cannot be made of the amount which is already subjected to tax in the hands of the firm. Thus in the present case also penalty cannot survive So far as, the second addition is concerned there is no positive material on record imposing penalty and addition is based upon interpretation of facts. Therefore, at least, it is not a fit case for levying penalty, because, the assessee disclosed the material facts/details and even the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) affirmed the addition only to the extent of ₹ 9,92,800/- out of the addition of 28,60,000/-. That too is based upon appreciation of facts. It may or may not be a good case for sustaining part addition but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... placed upon the decision in ITA No.4552/Mum/2012 and ITA No.6025/Mum/2012 (pages 90 and 92 of the paper book). It was contended that the assessee did not file appeal under the effect of these two orders. Our attention was invited to page 62 of the paper book by contending that the direction of the settlement commission is binding on the Assessing Officer. With respect to second addition, it was contended that addition was of ₹ 28,60,000/- by the Assessing Officer by inviting our attention to para 4 of the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), para 8 of the penalty order, by explaining that the addition was based on presumption as no investigation was made by the Assessing Officer and the addition was merely on interpr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty, conclusion drawn in the impugned order, material available on record, assertions made by the ld. respective counsel, if kept in juxtaposition and analyzed, we note that major additions, to the total income, were on account of (a) unexplained cash credit, detected out of the incriminating documents seized during the course of search, to the tune of ₹ 28,60,000/-, (b) bogus loans to the tune of ₹ 34 lakh from one party M/s Jai Mata Di, and (c) bogus IMD gifts of ₹ 5,91,74,176/-. The additions were challenged before the ld. First Appellate Authority, who vide order dated 02/07/2010, confirmed certain additions which are summarized as under:- (i) In the case of unexplained cash credit, the addition of ₹ 28,60,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Haresh N Mehta (the assessee) ITA No.6025/Mum/2012 (pages 92 to 95 of the paper book), the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. Thus, under the effect of these orders of the Tribunal, the assessee did not file any appeal. The direction of the Settlement Commission is binding upon the Assessing Officer. However, this order was not available with the Assessing Officer while levying the penalty, therefore, on the first addition, penalty cannot survive. 2.5. So far as, the second addition is concerned, we note that the original additional was made to the tune of ₹ 28,60,000/- by the Assessing Officer. As already mention in the presiding paras of this order, search and seizure action u/s 132(1) of the Act was carried out upon M/s Roha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
