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

2016 (10) TMI 836 - ITAT CHENNAI

2016 (10) TMI 836 - ITAT CHENNAI - TMI - Penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) - there was search operation in the year 2010 and undisclosed income was assessed under Section 153A - Held that:- This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the penalty, if any, can be levied only under Section 271AAA of the Act. In other words, the undisclosed income computed by the Assessing Officer squarely falls in subclause (i) of 271AAA of the Act. Therefore, in view of sub-section (3) of Section 271AAA 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

the Assessing Officer, as confirmed by the CIT(Appeals), are set aside and the entire penalty levied by the Assessing Officer is deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.987/Mds/2013, ITA No.1306/Mds/2013, ITA No.1306/Mds/2013 - Dated:- 1-9-2016 - SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate For The Revenue : Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT ORDER PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Both the appeals of the assessee .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f Institutions in the year 2010. A simultaneous search was also conducted in the case of the present assessee. For the assessment year 2006-07, the Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹ 9 lakhs towards lease advance. According to the Ld. counsel, the reason for making the addition is that the copy of agreement with Vel Horticulture Ltd. was not produced before the Assessing Officer. The fact remains that the assessee has received ₹ 9 lakhs as advance. Moreover, the addition was mad .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y at Tirupathi for a sale consideration of ₹ 22 lakhs. In fact, the assessee s mother Smt. Sakunthala Rangarajan acquired the property through her mother by way of gift on 30.08.1980. In turn, Smt. Sakunthala Rangarajan gifted the property to her three daughters equally on 29.06.2003. The said property was sold on 21.11.2005 for a sale consideration of ₹ 66 lakhs. The assessee s 1/3rd share comes to ₹ 22 lakhs. While computing the long term capital gains, the assessee took the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on 01.04.1981 that cannot be construed as concealment of income as claimed by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel, the CIT(Appeals) has rightly deleted the addition. 4. The Ld.counsel for the assessee further submitted that during the financial year 2002-03, the assessee showed opening cash balance of ₹ 22,90,198/- as on 01.04.2002. The assessee explained before the Assessing Officer that she was holding agricultural land to the extent of 6.46 acres, which was u .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he Ld. counsel, that would not automatically levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. On the contrary, Shri Supriyo Pal, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the Assessing Officer levied penalty in respect of three additions. Out of three additions on which penalty was levied, the CIT(Appeals) confirmed the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer in respect of only one addition. In respect of two other additions, the CIT(Appeals) deleted the penalty levied 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

ot have received Rs. 9 lakhs as advance. Accordingly, he confirmed the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. However, in respect of the addition to the extent of ₹ 9,06,196/- on account of long term capital gains, the CIT(Appeals) found that the assessee has disclosed the long term capital gains and the difference was only with regard to cost of acquisition of property. Accordingly, by placing reliance on the judgement of Apex Court in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as on 01.04.2002. However, the assessee could not produce cash book in support of the above said opening balance. The assessee offered cash credit in the cash flow statement for assessment year 2006-07, which was availed for purchase of property during the year under consideration. Since the assessee claims cash balance as on 01.04.2002, it is for the assessee to establish the cash balance by producing necessary material. Since such material was not produced, according to the Ld. D.R., the addi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ls) found that the assessee has voluntarily offered the same in the block proceeding. But for the search, the assessee would not have disclosed ₹ 11,97,289/-. Therefore, according to the Ld. D.R., merely because the assessee disclosed the amount voluntarily in the return of income filed consequent to search operation under Section 153A of the Act that cannot be a reason for deleting the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. 7. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and .....

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