Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

RAHUL SYAL Versus ITO, WARD-18 (1) , NEW DELHI

2016 (1) TMI 745 - ITAT DELHI

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - income has been detected on account of scrutiny assessment - Held that:- It is evident that the assessee had received the amount of ₹ 5,38,854/-, which should have been made the assessee curious about this entry in his bank account. Therefore, it is clear that this amount had not been truly disclosed and explained by the assessee at the time of filing of its return of income, therefore, this amount was treated as concealed income and therefore, the reliance was plac .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

1,25,306/- instead of ₹ 1,45,906/-. Hence, no reason to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) - Decided against assessee. - ITA No. 4995/Del/2015 - Dated:- 30-10-2015 - SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Assessee: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR For The Department : Sh. V.K. Sehgal, CA ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, New Delhi dated 8.6.2015 pertaining to asse .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Act 1961 on 5.3.2013 at a total income of ₹ 7,38,850/- against the returned income of ₹ 2,00,000/-. During the assessment proceedings, while examining the blank statement it was noticed that the deposits of ₹ 4,84,969/- and ₹ 18,24,975/- appearing on 24.2.2010. The assessee was asked to furnish the source of these deposits. In response, vide letter dated 15.1.2013 the assessee stated that he booked a flat with BPTP Ltd and it does not offered the flat as committed by it. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er the assessee nor its representative attended. Another show cause notice u/s. 271(1)© of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 5.8.2013 was issued and the case was fixed for 21.8.2013. On the fixed date, again no compliance has been made by the assessee. In view of these facts, it seems that the assessee has nothing to say in this regard and therefore, the AO held that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income to the extent of ₹ 5,38,854/- within the meaning of Explanation .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he assessee reiterated the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal and requested that the penalty in dispute may be deleted. 7. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the order of the authorities below. 8. I have heard both the parties and perused the records, especially the orders of the revenue authorities. I find that the Ld. CIT(A) has elaborately dealt with the issue in dispute and held as under:- a) From the facts of the case, it is clear that the interest amount had been received by e ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sessee. It is therefore, clear that this amount would not have been taxed if the case had not been under scrutiny. It is also clear that the appellant had not fully disclosed all the facts at the time of filing of return of income. Though the AR has relied upon various judicial pronouncements to argue that there was no intention or desired to concealed the income, in the present case it was evident that the assessee had received this substantial amount of ₹ 5,38,854/-, which should have be .....

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 assessment and would be evaded if the scrutiny assessment was not done the penalty on concealment should be imposed. Therefore, in my opinion the AO was fully justified imposing the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. c) However, with regard to the computation of amount the AO is directed to reduce the amount of TDS, if the same has not been considered for taxes already paid by the appellant. Similarly, the AO may verify the claim of the appellant that the total amount of penalty sho .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version