GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (3) TMI 448 - ITAT JAIPUR

2016 (3) TMI 448 - ITAT JAIPUR - TMI - Penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) - income offered by the assessee in the revised return by treating it as unexplained - Held that:- The entirety of the facts reveals the facts narrated above reveals that the assessee’s entire defense qua penalty is to the effect that he filed the revised return voluntarily. The statement of the assessee is to be examined in the back drop of the facts, human conduct and preponderance of probabilities; not on mere assessee's assertion. .....

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 Saint by sheer dawn of wisdom and filed revised return voluntarily. I find merit in the arguments of the ld. DR that revised return as contemplated by Section 139(5) of the Act is to correct any omission or wrong statement in the computation of income and not to correct tax evasion. These provisions did not give any immunity from any bogus transactions declared in the original return. The interpretation given by the assessee to the claim of revised return is not tenable and not in accordance w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

indicate that the assessee became a willing party to nefarious black money racket for obtaining bogus gifts. Such acts cannot be taken lightly as they lead to scourge of black money in the country. Thus in view of the foregoing, the penalty order of the ld. CIT(A) is confirmed. - Decided against assessee - ITA No. 619/JP/2015 - Dated:- 2-2-2016 - SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri P.C. Parwal (CA) For The Revenue : Shri Rajender Singh, JCIT-. DR ORDER PER R.P. TOLANI, JM 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

he original return declaring income of ₹ 97,700/- was filed on 11-09-2004 by the assessee which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the Investigation Wing of the Department consequent to searches on entry provider M/s. B.C. Purohit & Group (Tax Consultant) on 12-04-2005 observed that this group was engaged in the widespread racket of providing accommodation entries. AO on the basis of ADI information found that the assessee was a beneficiary of the racket as it had receive .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nsidered by undersigned later) as a smart move of the assessee. The news about search on B.C. Purohit Group dated 12-04-2005 spread widely amongst entry provider market circles and assessee realized that entire racket has been detected and in order to pre-empt the departmental action the revised return was filed. On receipt of notice u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee filed a letter to treat his revised return dated 21-06-2005 as filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. Accordingly, the AO .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the assessee had entered into bogus transactions; the revised return was not voluntary as the complete incriminating information was available with the department thus inaccurate particulars of income were furnished. 2.2 Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred first appeal where the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty by following observation. 3.2 I have duly considered assessee's submission and carefully gone through penalty order passed by the ld. AO. I have taken a note of factual matrix of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on conducted, assessee would not have offered this for taxation. After conduct of search operation, all proceedings in case of assessee have been abated, meaning thereby revised return so filed has become non-est. Therefore, the AO has rightly discussed about the revised return in the assessment order passed u/s 145(3) r.w.s. 147 but did not take any cognizance of the revised return. Therefore, penalty order passed u/s 271(1) (c ) by taking concealed income of ₹ 1,86,000/-is fully justifie .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Since the amount was already offered to tax by revised return, no penalty was imposable. Reliance was placed in the case of Shalimar Buildcon (P) Ltd. vs. ITO, 45 DTR 185 holding that share application money received from B.C. Purohit Group cannot be added u/s 68 in the absence of any evidence to show that the share capital represented accommodation entries. (iii) Further reliance is placed as under:- (1) Jai Narain Upadhyay vs. ACIT (2012) 75 DTR 361 (Luck) (Tribunal) (T.M.) (2) Raghuveer Sara .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

be genuine. (iii) The search by the Investigation Wing on the kingpin of black money racket B.C. Purohit (tax consultant) Group created a furor in the hawala trade circles. Assessee was aware that consequential proceedings will be taken on him from which there will be no escapement. (iv) The provision of Section 139(5) give an option to file a revised return for any omission or any wrong statement of income and not for money laundering admissions. Therefore, the assessee revised was an attempt 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

alimar Buildcon (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (supra) is not applicable which pertains to share application money and it was contested on quantum by the assessee by establishing that there was no evidence in that behalf. In assessee's case, there is clear admission and no contest to the facts about accommodation entry. Both the cases are thus factually different (v) The facts about furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and nature of hawala transactions in each case are different and peculiar var .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the facts reveals the facts narrated above reveals that the assessee s entire defense qua penalty is to the effect that he filed the revised return voluntarily. The statement of the assessee is to be examined in the back drop of the facts, human conduct and preponderance of probabilities; not on mere assessee's assertion. It is not disputed that search in the case of B.C. Purohit Group (Tax Consultant) having office at Jaipur and Kolkata was undertaken on 12-04-2005. The news of the massive .....

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