9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 1094X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the year under consideration, assessee filed its return at total income of Rs. 1.49 crores. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee received share application money of Rs. 89.50 lakhs during the year under consideration. The assessee was asked to furnish the details with supporting evidences. In response to the same, assessee vide letter dated 01.11.2011 submitted the following :- "During the course of hearing you had asked us to provide necessary evidence in respect of share application money of Rs. 89,50,000/- received during the year. In this connection, we wish to submit that we are not in a position to provide necessary supporting. We therefore, in order to buy peace, offer the share ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y peace of mind and to avoid litigation penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied. In the instant case, there was no malafide intention on the part of the assessee and the AO had not brought any evidence on record to prove that there was concealment of income. At the time of surrender itself contention of not initiating any penalty proceedings was there. No additional matter was discovered to prove that there was concealment of income. The AO has included the amount of share capital in the total income of assessee merely on the basis of assessee's declaration/surrender. The AO did not point out or refer any evidence or material to show that the amount of share capital received by the assessee was bogus. It is also not the case of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court in the case of Siddharth Enterprises vide order dt. 14th July, 2009 held after considering the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors & Ors. (2008) 306 ITR (SC) 277 that the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra Textiles (supra) cannot be read as laying down that in every case where particulars of income are inaccurate, penalty must follow. What has been laid down is that qualitative difference between criminal liability under s. 276C and penalty under s. 271(1)(c) had to be kept in mind and approach adopted to the trial of a criminal case need not be adopted while considering the levy of penalty. Even so, concept of penalty has not undergone ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
