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

2017 (2) TMI 323 - ITAT AHMEDABAD

2017 (2) TMI 323 - ITAT AHMEDABAD - TMI - Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - bogus gifts - Held that:- the case of the assessee represents a classic case of creating the dubious capital. The assessee is owned agricultural income which has been found to be not justified and the gifts from co-owner brother Shri Vinodbhai Patel has been found to be not correct as the bills were found to be bogus. In view of these facts and circumstances, I find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) which is upheld. Acco .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

271(1)(c) amounting to ₹ 6,09,972/. 2. The grounds raised in ITA No.1710/Ahd/2013, i.e. quantum appeal, read as under: (1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the subject, the CIT(A) has wrongly held that the "a" had not argued Gr. No.2 challenging the Re-opening of the assessment u/s 148. (2) On the facts and circumstances of the case & law on the subject, the CIT(A) has totally ignored the affidavit of the counsel regarding the arguments before CIT(A). (3 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

fully made the addition on account of gift received as under:- a. Santokben P. Patel Rs.8,28,000/- b. Santokben P. Patel (ornament) Rs.2,12,826/- c. Amrutlal P. Patel Rs.9,00,000/- Rs.19,40,826/- 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee contends that this is second round of appeal. The ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench vide order dated 22.02.2011 in ITA No.3740/Ahd/2008 had set aside the matter to ld. CIT(A) by following observations:- 4.1 Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we 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

pportunity of being heard to both the sides. Resultantly, for statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed. 3.1 Consequent thereto, ld. CIT(A) re-decided the appeal as under:- 4. Decision: The Hon'ble ITAT had directed that it should be verified whether the appellant had argued the ground No.2 challenging the reopening of assessment u/s. 148 before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) in his order dated 25.07.2008 has mentioned, "Ground No. 1 - In this ground of appeal, 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

was asked to produce the copy of the submissions made before the CIT(A) (my predecessor) in the appeal proceedings before him but the appellant did not file the copy of the written submissions which he had filed during the course of appeal proceedings on 1.07.2008. This only confirms that the appellant had not presented any argument in its written submission on this ground of appeal before the CIT(A) when the hearing took place on 01.07.2008. 4.3 During the present appeal proceedings which are f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ngs before my predecessor and therefore the Ground No.2 regarding reopening of assessment was correctly dismissed by my predecessor vide his order dtd. 25- 07-2008. The other grounds of appeal have been dealt in detail and adjudicated by CIT(A) in his order dtd. 25-07-2008 and these are not required to be adjudicated again as no fresh facts have been submitted before me. 4.5. During the present appellate proceedings before me, the appellant raised an additional ground of appeal which had not bee .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

raised before the ITAT & the Hon'ble ITAT vide its order dated 22.02.2011 set aside specific issue to the CIT(A) with a very specific directions which was "to verify whether the counsel of the assessee actually argued the ground No. 2 challenging the reopening of assessment under Sec. 148 of the IT Act, 1961." The jurisdiction of the undersigned in the present proceedings are only for this limited purpose and no more. Therefore considering this, the additional ground of appeal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ging the reopening was raised and if so, adjudicated. The additional ground being raised by the assessee was not raised in the original proceedings, it is beyond the purview of the order of ITAT. Besides, it is totally a new ground, factual in nature and will require adjudication of facts. Consequently, the additional ground should not be admitted. 4. I have heard the rival contentions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. I find merit in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cation of facts. This was not raised before the original proceedings. In view of these facts and circumstances, the additional ground raised by the assessee cannot be admitted. Therefore, the plea in this behalf is dismissed. 5. Apropos main grounds, ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the affidavit filed before the lower authorities and written submissions to the effect that there is neither sufficient reason for reopening of assessment nor there is issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act .....

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 ld. CIT(A) in categorical terms, after due verification of records, has held that no arguments were made by the assessee at the time of hearing, no 154 application was ever filed before the CIT(A) to indicate that Ground No.2 regarding re-opening was contested and not decided. The assessee is building small trick to wriggle out of the situation by hook or by crook and entered in multiplicity of proceedings to diverge the attention from actual facts. 7. I have heard the rival contentions, pe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rt of my arguments but to my great surprise, The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has stated that AR is not keen to press this ground or has no substantive argument against the action taken by the AO and he dismissed my appeal. I reiterate that I had vehemently argued the validity of the proceedings under section 147 of The Income Tax Act,1961 before the CIT(A)-II, Surat. I have filled this affidavit to submit in my appeal no 3740/Ahd /2008 before the Honorable ITAT-Ahmedabad. 7.1 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

missions qua the reopening of the assessment were filed. The inference that the assessee did not contest ground No.2 is further supported by the fact that the assessee did not file any 154 application before the ld. CIT(A) for non-adjudication of the ground. Thus, the glaring facts and inconsistencies in assessee s submissions are to the effect that though written submissions were filed, no submissions were made about the reopening and after receipt of the order, the assessee did not seek the mo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r of the ld. CIT(A) in this behalf which is upheld. The assessee s appeal is accordingly dismissed. 8. Apropos ITA No.1711/Ahd/2013, i.e. the appeal against penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the ld. Counsel for the assessee contends that there is neither any concealment of income nor any furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee filed following documents:- (1) The donors have confirmed the gift. (2) The 'a' had filed the gift deed as well as affidavit of the do .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ere the money given by the donee in any form at any time. (6) The donors are the members of the hindu undivided family and not any outsider." 8.1 The ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty by following observations:- 6. I have gone through the order of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c), submission of the appellant and the assessment record. From the assessment record, it is seen that the appellant had not filed the balance sheet and the capital accounts of the donors before the AO. The CIT(A) vide his order da .....

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