9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 869X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... & Shri George Mathan, JM For the Applicant: Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri K. N. Jana, JCIT, Sr. DR ORDER Per Bench: All these stay petitions filed by assessee in ITA Nos. 835 to 836/K/2013 for AY 2006-07 and 2007-08, ITA Nos. 837 & 838/Kol/2013 for AY 2009-10 & 2010-11 and ITA No. 839/Kol/2013 for AY 2010-11. Shri S. M. Surana is appearing on behalf of the assessee/app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... returned income. It was the submission that the returned income itself was on the basis of the disclosure made by the assessee vide his letter and affidavit dated 29.01.2010. It was the submission that the assesee having voluntarily disclosed the income and having paid the taxes much before the search itself, no penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was liable to be levied on the assessee. It was the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalties on or before 30th June, 2013. 3. In reply, the Ld. DR submigtted that stay should not be granted. It was the submission that if searches have not been taken place the assessee would not have disclosed the income. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. Without going into the merits of the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act as also considering the fact that the assesee ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
