Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (7) TMI 506 - ITAT DELHI

2016 (7) TMI 506 - ITAT DELHI - TMI - Penalty U/s. 271AAA - undisclosed income surrendered by the assesssee during the course of search - Held that:- Finding considerable cogency in the assessee’s counsel contention that during the search, cash of ₹ 35,00,000/- was seized from the locker of the assessee which was surrendered as income for the current financial year 2008-09 as income earned from advance received against sale of property. The assessee declared this sum as undisclosed income .....

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 previous year 2008-09, therefore, there is no question of penalizing the assessee under section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for non disclosure of income. Hence, the penalty levied by the AO and affirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, penalty deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No.3699/Del/2014 - Dated:- 13-6-2016 - SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Assessee : Sh. AK Babbar, Adv. For The Department : S h . KK Jaiswal, Sr. DR 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

Ld CIT(A) has relied on incorrect finding of Ld AO. (No explanation offered by assessee and has ignored the submissions made by the assessee before Ld CIT (Appeal) and has accordingly not observed the Principles of natural justice. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in observing that no evidence with regard to undisclosed income of ₹ 3,50,000/- was given. 4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of Appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other. 2. The facts in brief are that the assessee was covered under search action u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the Act) pursuant whereto it filed its return of income for the block period AY 2009-10 declaring a total income of ₹ 41,93,730/- which included an amount of ₹ 35,00,000/- surrendered by the assessee as it .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eof the assessee was served with notices u/s. 271AAA of the Act in response underlying the surrender of ₹ 35,00,000/-. After detailed hearing and discussions the AO discarded the clarifications offered by the assessee respecting the manner in which the undisclosed income of ₹ 35,00,000/- was earned by the latter. The AO observed that the assessee had failed to provide any details in respect of the manner in which the undisclosed income of ₹ 35,00,000/- surrendered by the assess .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. Counsel of the assessee stated that the assessee was appointed as an Independent Director in M/s Koutons Retail India Ltd. and there was a search in Koutons group u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and assessee was also covered in this search u/s 132. He stated that during the search, cash of ₹ 35,00,000/- was seized from the locker of the assessee which was surrendered as income for the current financial year 2008-09 as income earned from advanc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

O has mentioned in the order that no explanation was offered in respect of undisclosed income. He stated that this observation is against the facts of the case as mentioned above as the assessee had filed detailed reply on 11-04-2011 and has personally attended the proceedings to explain the transaction, which was not considered at all and AO ignored all the above explanations and imposed the penalty of ₹ 3,50,000/- vide order dated 30-05-2011. It was argued by the assessee s counsel 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

Tax Act, 1961 for non disclosure of income. 6. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and stated that the lower authorities has rightly levied the penalty upon the assessee which needs to be affirmed. 7. I have heard the both parties, perused and considered the relevant records available with me especially the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). I find that during the search, cash of ₹ 35,00,000/- was seized from the locker of the assessee. The assesse .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ted as it is but AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA of the Act in the assessment order for cash seized from locker. The assessee was served with show cause notice for imposition of penalty u/s 271AAA to which assessee replied on 11/04/2011 but AO has not considered the reply filed in this regard by the assessee on 11-04-2011. From the records, it reveals that the assessee had attended the penalty proceedings on 12-05-2011 wherein all the details with regard to cash seized from his locke .....

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