Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Alkesh M. Patel Versus DCIT, Central Circle-1 (1) Ahmedabad

2016 (5) TMI 1247 - ITAT AHMEDABAD

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - Held that:- There is no dispute that assessee as well as his employer have been stating that this undisclosed income is in fact an expenditure limit allowed to be incurred to the respective employees. There is no evidence quoted in the shape of incriminating material or otherwise which could prove that assessee’s employer has not booked the corresponding sum as expenditure in its accounts maintained. The assessee’s case is that he has spent the impugned sums for the purp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ead to imposition of penalty.

The present case is an instance where assessee has not been able to substantiate his explanation of having spent the impugned expenditure limit for his employer company for the purpose of the business and also the Revenue has failed to refer to the employer’s books so as to negate the same by holding that the very sums have not been claimed as expenditure. We reiterate that this is a penalty case liable to be strictly interpreted. This factual position l .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

; 2003-04, arise from order of the CIT(A)-I, Ahmedabad s orders; both dated 23- 10-2012 in appeal nos. CIT(A)-I/CC.1(1)/139/2011-12 and CIT(A)- I/CC.1(1)/73/2011-12, confirming penalties of ₹ 11,010/- and ₹ 33,300/-; respectively, in proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short the Act . Both parties are in unison during the course of hearing that these two appeals raise identical issue of validity of the impugned penalty on facts and law. We treat ITA 57 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

his culminated into issuance of section 153C r.w.s. 153A notice dated 05-04-2006. The assessee filed his return on 30-04-2007 stating income of ₹ 1,10,881/-. The Assessing Officer took up scrutiny. The assessee stated therein that he had already approached Settlement Commission for offering additional income of ₹ 36,700/- along with similar other sums in preceding and succeeding assessment year. The Assessing Officer observed that Settlement Commission stood abated for want of order .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rpose of searched entity s business expense. 3. The assessee filed his reply inter alia pleading that the impugned incriminating evidence was nowhere subjected to cross verification, section 153C did not specify any reasons, drew attention towards his search statement dated 28-12-2005 stating that the impugned sums were in fact expenditure limit allocated in corresponding assessment year and not his income, and that the impugned undisclosed income of ₹ 36,700/- had been admitted in Settlem .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

stated hereinabove. And that assessee was a salaried employee not entitled to claim any corresponding income thereto. The assessment order dated 30-09- 2009 accordingly treated the alleged expenditure sum limit salary and bonus thereby adding the impugned sum of ₹ 36,700/- as undisclosed income of the relevant previous year. The Assessing Officer further initiated the instant penalty proceedings alleging concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Case records reveal th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in admitting undisclosed income of ₹ 36,700/- amounted to concealment of income by furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof. This resulted in levy of the impugned penalty of ₹ 11,010/- being imposed. The CIT(A) upholds the same. This leaves the assessee aggrieved. 5. Heard both sides. Case file perused. The assessee reiterates his explanation throughout and prays for deleting the impugned penalty inter alia on the ground that this is neither a case of concealment nor furnishing 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

mpugned penalty. 6. We have heard rival contentions. Relevant facts set out hereinabove are not repeated for the sake of brevity. There is no dispute that assessee as well as his employer have been stating that this undisclosed income is in fact an expenditure limit allowed to be incurred to the respective employees. There is no evidence quoted in the shape of incriminating material or otherwise which could prove that assessee s employer has not booked the corresponding sum as expenditure in its .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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