TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 1199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Officer failed to appreciate that the assessee has fulfilled all the conditions mandatory to get immunity from the levy of penalty. AO did not consider the fact that in his statement made u/s. 132(4) of the Act, the assessee has offered additional income for tax. The assessee has paid taxes on the said undisclosed income offered and the assessee has explained the source from which the said income has been earned. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the grievance of the Revenue. We, therefore decline to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). - Decided against revenue - ITA No. 383/PNJ/2014, ITA Nos. 384 & 385/PNJ/2014, ITA Nos. 386 & 387/PNJ/2014 - - - Dated:- 17-6-2015 - Shri George Mathan, Hon ble Judicial Member A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 75,00,000 4,61,00,000 Balance income of ₹ 4,39,00,000/- was offered to tax in return of income furnished under sec. 153A in respect of the persons concerned and details, assessment year wise, is as under:- A.Y Shritik Rolling Pvt. Ltd. Prateek Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Shritik Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Girija Agarwal Total 07-08 61,00,000 1,71,00,000 75.00,000 0 3,07,00,000 06-07 0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ingly, proceeded by levying the penalty. 4. Aggrieved by this, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld.CIT(A). It was strongly contended that satisfaction of the Assessing Officer in the order of the assessment is a prerequisite condition for invoking the penalty proceedings. The Assessing Officer has not recorded his satisfaction. Therefore, in the absence of any proper reason being recorded by the Assessing Officer, order of penalty lacks application of mind. Relying upon the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ms. Madhushree Gupta vs. Union of India anr.(317 ITR 107), it was strongly contended that failing to record satisfaction in itself would make the levy of penalty illegal. 4.1 It was f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s. 148 was served on him, he filed revised returns showing higher income. Eventually assessment orders were passed. Ii penalty proceedings under section 271, the assessee claimed that he had offered additional income to buy peace of mind and avoid litigation. Penalty orders were passed and the commissioner (A) confirmed the orders. But the Appellate Tribunal held that the Department had not discharged its burden of proving of concealment and had simply rested its conclusion on the Act of Voluntary surrender done by the assessee in good faith, and that penalty could not be levied. On a reference, the High Court held that no penalty could be levied for concealment. The Department preferred appeal to the Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
