Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (12) TMI 286 - ITAT MUMBAI

2015 (12) TMI 286 - ITAT MUMBAI - TMI - Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - deceleration of additional income in reply to notice u/s 153A - Held that:- So far as, the first addition is concerned, the money belonged to partnership firm M/s Silver Arch Builders and Promoters. Before the settlement commission, applicants made prayer for capitalization of their income following application method, which was allowed by the ld. Settlement Commission. As decided in ACIT vs Haresh N Mehta [2013 (11) TMI 1582 - ITAT .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ord 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 not sustaining the penalty, because, for .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Memb For The Assessee : Shri Vijay Mehta For The Revenue : Shri Kusum Bansal-DR ORDER Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) The assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 30/09/2013 of the ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai. The only ground pressed by the assessee is ground no.3, which pertains to confirming the penalty of ₹ 11,86,896/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act). 2. During hearing of this appeal, the crux of argument advanced by Shri .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ages 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

reliance was placed upon the conclusion drawn by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by inviting our attention to para 7.1 of the impugned order. 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee declared total income of ₹ 42,48,960/- in his return. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in the case of M/s Rohan Group, including Directors of different associated and sister .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

established. The assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal. 2.3. If the observation made in the assessment order/penalty order, leading to imposition of penalty, 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 se .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

34 lakh on account of bogus loans was confirmed, (iii) The balance addition were deleted by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 2.4. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings. Now, we shall deal with the additions on the basis of which penalty was imposed. So far as, the first addition is concerned, the money belonged to partnership firm M/s Silver Arch Builders and Promoters (Item at serial no.5 at page 1 of the paper book containing order of the settlement commission). Befo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

m to tax and subject to the proceedings before the Settlement Commission (Pages 86 to 91 relevant page 91). 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, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. Therefore, from this angle also, no penalty is imposable. Identically vide order dated 07/02/2014, in the case of ACIT vs Haresh N Mehta (the assessee) ITA No.6025/Mum/2012 (pages 92 to 95 of the paper book), the appe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

essing 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 Rohan Group including the Directors of its associated and sister companies of the group. Assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 29/12/2008 making the additions on account of unexplained cash credit of ₹ 28,60,000/- along with others. The assessee challenged the penalty by claiming that necessary documents/particulars were filed by the assessee to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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