TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 1421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment order the AO has observed that a survey action under s. 133A conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 30th Nov., 2005 wherein it surrendered ₹ 14,00,000 as an additional income for taxation but in the return of income declared only ₹ 4,00,000. The AO further observed that the additional income was assessed only in the result of deep scrutiny. The trading addition was clearly in concealment nature. The excess stock and cash found during the course of survey proceedings represented the undisclosed income of the firm. The cash credits also found in the name of the partner, Smt. Durga Devi were also unexplained but no separate addition was made since same was deemed to be covered under the trading addition. D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not a voluntary disclosure made by the assessee and the additional income disclosed by the assessee related to concealed income and s. 271(1)(c) has to be applied. He strongly supported the penalty order passed by the AO. 5. On the other hand the learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee is a small businessman and to buy peace he has disclosed the amount of ₹ 14,00,000 as his trading income. In fact the AO has not made investigation with regard to trading activity of the assessee and nothing was found more than what has been declared by the assessee and the same was also explained before the AO, the reasons for disclosure and he submitted that the AO has not found that the explanation of the assessee is fal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . No addition was made in respect of the cash credits of the partner. The labour receipts were also added on estimate basis only. All such additions were accepted by the appellant as is evident from the surrender letter furnished during the assessment proceedings. The appellant had furnished explanation in respect of each and every item on which penalty was levied by the AO but in the penalty order there is nothing to suggest that the explanation furnished by the appellant was false. Non-substantiation of explanation furnished could lead to addition but cannot be said to justify the imposition of penalty under s. 271 (1)(c). The Tribunal, Amritsar in case of Dr. Ravi Paul cited above and the decision of Punjab Haryana High Court in the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
