9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been able to furnish the concrete evidence in support of her claim. ii. The ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) is justified. iii. The ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 8,10,500/-. iv. It is prayed that penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 8,10,500/- be deleted. 2. The relevant facts as culled out from the materials on record are as under:- In this case, return of income was filed on 29.08.2005 declaring total net taxable income of Rs. 3,78,850/-. The assessment u/s.143(3) of the I.T. Act was finalized on 31/12/2007 determining total income of Rs. 36,11,254/-. While finalizing the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omation. Out of these, 5 parties, the agreement in respect of 3 parties was up to the period of 14th October, 2005 to 7/9th June, 2006 and in respect of other three parties, there was no agreement. As per the Assessing Officer, the agreement amount was Rs. 32,32,404/-. Therefore, this amount in fact accrued to assessee and on that basis, the Assessing Officer made addition of the same as undisclosed income. However, the ld. CIT(A) reduced this amount to Rs. 23,85,738/- and gave relief of Rs. 8,46,666/-. In respect of amount related to VFS (India) Pvt. Ltd., the assessee has placed on record a certificate from VFS (India) Pvt. Ltd. that no amount was paid to the assessee after 1st April, 2004. However, Assessing Officer has not made enquiry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re was no contract existing between the parties post 1st April 2004. As per this cancellation, agreement amount of Rs. 15,50,000/- was to be refunded. The contention of the assessee is that this amount of Rs. 15,50,000/- was duly offered as income in the preceding year. The authorities below have construed the terms of the cancellation of agreement that the assessee was in receipt of the charge till October, 2005. However, the authorities below have not verified the factum of payment through M/s. Kuoni travels (India) Pvt. Ltd. Under these facts and the term of contract is clear that contract was terminated with immediate effect. However, the same term states that all amounts received under the agreement for services rendered till 14/10/200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat in respect of the issue of ownership in the preceding year, the issue travelled up to the state of the Tribunal, In ITA No. 1039/Ahd/2008 in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2004-05, ld. Counsel submitted that the addition of Rs. 5,85,000/- was made u/s.69 in respect of amounts stated to be invested and the properties lease to M/s. Prabhat Automation and the Hon'ble Tribunal has held that the assessee had merely possessed the right thereof which is not equivalent to ownership right though the assessee is describe as owner in this case, we find that the Assessing Officer had made no effort to find out whether the particular property was vacant, during year under consideration. Under these facts, we do not see any reason to sustain th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
