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 →

Dr. G. Ravindranath Sorma Versus ACIT, Circle 2 (1) , Tirupathi

2010 (10) TMI 1131 - ITAT HYDERABAD

IT(SS)A.16/Hyd/2010 - Dated:- 29-10-2010 - SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by : Shri S. Rama Rao Respondent by : Shri Amlan Tripathy ORDER Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member: This appeal preferred by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) -,Tirupathi dated 3.5.2010 and pertains to the Block Period from 1.4.1996 to 8.8.2002. 2. In this case, Penalty has been levied after passing giving effect to Tribunal 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

e have also gone through the orders of the lower authorities. The assessing officer in this case levied penalty only on the reason that the Tribunal has sustained the above additions. However, he has not given his findings independently regarding the levy of penalty. The provisions of Section 158BFA read as follows Section 158 BFA(2): The assessing officer or the CIT(A) in the course of any proceedings under this Chapter, may direct that a person shall pay by way of penalty a sum which shall not .....

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 money so seized to be adjusted against the tax payable; iii) evidence of tax paid is furnished along with the return; and iv) an appeal is not filed against the assessment of that part of income which is shown in the return". 4. As seen from the above provisions, the provisions of Sec.158BFA(2) are akin to Penalty Proceedings u/s 271(1) ( c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore the provisions are analogues to Section 271(1) (c ) of the Act. The Supreme Court judgement in the case 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

s of ₹ 87,857/-. This amount is received from two persons in Germany Viz., Eloma and Gloria. The intimation sent along with the remittance and which is part of the seized material, states that the amount is sent for medical equipment. The seized material also indicates that the assessee may have rendered service to these two persons and in consideration of the services rendered, the amount seems to have been sent to the assessee. The two persons do not appear to be connected either with VT .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lso does not seem to be connected in any way with VTL or CPT. Accordingly, this addition is also sustained. 5. In this case, the assessee has given explanation regarding the nature of receipt. However, it was not accepted by the authorities while sustaining additions. That itself cannot be the reason for levy of penalty. The assessing officer without bringing on any conclusive evidence to prove the concealment by the assessee or the fact of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the asse .....

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