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 →

Shri Prafulbhai G. Patel Versus The DCIT Central Circle-1 (1) , Ahmedabad

2016 (6) TMI 87 - ITAT AHMEDABAD

Levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) on the additions made while framing the assessment u/s.153C - Held that:- There can hardly be any dispute about the settled legal position that quantum and penalty proceedings stand on different footing and each and every addition of undisclosed income does not lead to imposition of penalty. We observe in these facts and circumstance that we are dealing with a tax statute wherein levy of penalty by invoking a penal provision after finalization of quantum is not auto .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

l position leads us to a conclusion that the authorities below have wrongly imposed the impugned penalty u/s.271 (1)(c) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee - IT(ss) 574, 575, 576, 577/Ahd/2012 - Dated:- 3-5-2016 - Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Accountant Member And Shri S. S. Godara, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, AR For the Revenue : Ms. Somugyan Pal Sr. DR ORDER Per Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Accountant Member This bunch of four appeals by the same assessee in IT(SS)A Nos.5 .....

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. Briefly stated facts as culled out from the material on record as under: A search operation u/s.132(1) of the Act was conducted in the cases of Sanjay RShah & Meghmani Group on 22/09/2005 and various documents/books of account/other valuable articles/other things were found and seized from the various premises covered u/s.132(1) and 133(1A) of the Act. The documents seized during the course of search, also related to payments of Salary, Bonus, etc. made by the assessee. Therefore, in view .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s determined at ₹ 4,49,304/- after making addition of ₹ 2,47,000/- on account of unaccounted receipts as per seized documents. On the addition of ₹ 2,47,000/- made on account of unaccounted salary, bonus, etc., the AO vide order dated 30/03/2011 held that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income thereby concealed the particulars of income and thereby liable for penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and levied penalty of ₹ 41,400/-. Aggrieved by the order 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

d it was an adhoc declaration then the same cannot be a basis for levy of penalty. In the case of the appellant, from a perusal of the appellate order and the assessment order u/s.143(3) read with s.153C it is seen that the addition were made based on data found on the Pen Drive when was recovered during the course of search. On the basis data on the Pen Drive if addition ware made then it is clear that the additional income declared by the appellant before the Settlement Commission would even o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sed the following common grounds of appeal:- 1. In laws and on facts as well as in the circumstances of the Appellant s case, the learned CIT(Appeals) has grossly erred in dismissing Ground No.1 of the Appellant s appeal challenging the validity of the Penalty Order impugned before hi on the ground that it had been passed in total disregard to the fact that the Appellant s application for granting immunity from penalty u/s.273AA was still pending before the Hon ble Commissioner of Income Tax. 2. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing of the appeal. 4. At the outset, the ld.AR submitted that on identical facts and arising out of same search, addition were made in case of Alkesh Patel and on those additions similar penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act was levied by AO. When the matter was carried before Tribunal, the Coordinate Bench of Tribunal in appeal bearing IT(SS)A Nos./579 & 580/A .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

thorities below and placed reliance on the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of MAK Data (P.)Ltd. reported at (2013) 38 taxmann.com 448 (SC). 5. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below and case-law relied upon by the parties. The issue in the present case is with respect to levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on the additions made while framing the assessment u/s.153C of the Act. We find that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 purpose of the business of his employer. He fails to substantiate the same. This has led to assessment of the-impugned sum in his hands as undisclose .....

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