9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nitially not accepted by the AO and he declared the profit to be 31% and that finding has been set aside in appeal and the assessee's profit has been accepted to be 27.5% as shown in the revised return meaning thereby, the assessee's income to the tune of 27.5% includes the relevant entry of Rs. 50 lakhs which is the amount deposited in the Bank of Tokyo, New Delhi Branch. As in the assessment order there is no finding of the AO that the assessee was guilty of concealing the income which AO could have recorded as provided under Section 271(1), initiation of proceeding under Section 271(1)(C) was not justified - in favour of assessee. - T.A. No. 39 of 2000 - - - Dated:- 5-9-2012 - MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH J. For the Appellant : Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s original assessment was made for the assessment year 1976-77 under Section 143(3) on 22.03.1977 which was rectified vide order dated 21.09.1977 under Section 154 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,45,41,305/-. Thereafter, proceeding under Section 148 read with Section 147(1) was initiated on 14.02.1978. However, after several orders, ultimately the final re-assessment was completed on 24.03.1992 on total income of Rs. 1,96,91,390/- and before that, the assessee submitted the revised return, however, in the year 1984. Therefore, it is clear from the facts of the case that to cover up the said amount of deposit of Rs. 50 lakhs in the Bank of Tokyo, New Delhi Branch on 12.05.1976, the assessee who had shown his profit to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Tokyo is concerned, nothing has been even observed by the Assessing Officer against the assessee even after taking note of the fact in Sub-para (i) of Para 2 of the order dated 24.03.1992 while dealing with the difference of bank balance. It is also submitted that the Assessing Officer, therefore, consciously did not order for initiation of proceeding under Section 271(1)(C). Just contrary to the said assessment order dated 24.03.1992, the Assessing Officer in the proceeding under Section 271(1)(C), has observed that the intention of the Assessing Officer was to initiate the penalty proceeding for concealment of income and this has been recorded in assessment order and, therefore, notice under Section 271(1)(C) read with Section 274 wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the explanation furnished by the assessee is accepted. Rs. 54,21,878.00 Total Income Rs. 1,96,91,392.00 Or Rs. 1,96,91,390.00 Assessed u/s 143(3)/251/254 as above on a total income of Rs. 1,96,91,390/-. Issue fresh D/N etc. accordingly." Sd/- (R. Kumar) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Asstt) Special Range, Ranchi 6. It appears from re-computation of the income that the total income of the assessee has been accepted as per the order passed under Section 143(3)/251 dated 30.03.1989 and the income assessed is Rs. 2,51,13,270/-. Out of this income, the addition has been disallowed in view of the explanation furnished by the assessee and which has been accepted by the Assessing Office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was initially not accepted by the Assessing Officer and he declared the profit to be 31% and that finding has been set aside in appeal and the assessee's profit has been accepted to be 27.5% as shown in the revised return meaning thereby, the assessee's income to the tune of 27.5% includes the relevant entry of Rs. 50 lakhs which is the amount deposited in the Bank of Tokyo, New Delhi Branch. 8. In view of the above reasons, we do not find any question of law in this appeal and it is only a question of fact has been raised by the revenue but so far as argument of learned counsel for the respondent that the initiation of proceeding was not justified appears to be a question of law and accordingly, it is held that in the facts of the case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
