TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 1171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 3.8 crores was offered to tax by the assessee. As the same came to the surface only because of survey and that had there been no survey, then that amount could not have been brought to tax. Therefore, it was held that the onmoney received was unaccounted income which was admitted by the assessee when it was confronted with the diary during the survey. However, we are of the view that the conclusion of the AO that amount was not finding mention in the regular books of accounts is over-sweeping over statement, because the fact remains that the books of accounts were not closed , then as the year was yet not over. It was not the case of the Revenue that the books were completed, accounts were audited and returns were filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for in the regular books of account of the assessee on the date of survey. 2. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) may be set aside and that of Assessing Officer may be restored to the above extent. 3. Brief facts of the case are that survey u/s.131(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 09/01/2013. The case was selected for scrutiny and serving a statutory notice and after seeking reply of the assessee, assessment order u/s.143(3) of the Act was finalized determining total income of ₹ 4,26,92,360/-. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) was also initiated for concealment of particulars of income. 3.1. After serving notices a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e authorities. Before we decide this issue on merits, it is necessary to evaluate the orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A) while deciding this ground. The Ld.CIT(A) has dealt with this ground in paragraph Nos.4 5 of his order, however, the relevant portion contained in paragraph No.5 to 5.4 of his order is reproduced hereunder: 5. I have perused the assessment order and considered the appellant's submission. There is no dispute to the facts that the appellant made a disclosure of ₹ 3.8 crores during the survey operation for the current year, included the onmoney receipts in the books of account, paid tax due, showed it in its return of income u/s 139(1) and the assessment u/s 143(3) was completed without any addition being made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon Kanbay Software India (P) Ltd. 122 TTJ 721 (Pune) wherein it was held that the expression 'particular' refers to facts, details, specifics or the information about someone or something and that the details or information about the Income' could deal with factual details of income . With due respect, I do not find that these help the case of the penalty. 5.2 I further note that the penalty has been imposed by the AO holding that the assessee had concealed his income from on-money receipt in his regular books of accounts. 'Particulars of income' includes books of accounts and in the case of the assessee, the on-money receipt was not finding mentioned in his regular books of accounts . I am of considered opinion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and in the regular return of income with taxes duly paid. Since the Assessing Officer was of the view that the unaccounted income of ₹ 3.8 crores was offered to tax by the assessee. As the same came to the surface only because of survey and that had there been no survey, then that amount could not have been brought to tax. Therefore, it was held that the onmoney received was unaccounted income which was admitted by the assessee when it was confronted with the diary during the survey. However, we are of the view that the conclusion of the Assessing Officer that amount was not finding mention in the regular books of accounts is over-sweeping over statement, because the fact remains that the books of accounts were not closed , th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
