9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 484X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... books - Decided against Revenue. - Income Tax Appeal No. 575/2013 - - - Dated:- 26-11-2013 - Sanjiv Khanna And Sanjeev Sachdeva,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Rohit Madan, Sr. Standing Counsel for Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal. For the Respondent : Nemo JUDGMENT Sanjiv Khanna, J. (Oral): We feel that the order of the tribunal is just and fair. Rs.20 cores was surrendered as undisclosed income at the time of search and it was agreed that the tax liability should be paid as set out in the statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) of Virendara Kumar Gupta. The said statement has been reproduced in the impugned order passed by the tribunal. Subsequently, affidavit of Sarad Jain was filed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income has to be assessed in the hands of "right person" alone. By "right person" is meant the person who is liable to be taxed, according to law, with respect to a particular income. There are no words in the Income Tax Act, which empower the Income Tax Officer or give him an option to tax either the AOP or its members individually. If it is the income of the AOP in law, the association of persons alone has to be taxed; The members of the AOP cannot be taxed individually in respect of the income of the AOP. Consideration of the interest of the revenue has no place in this scheme. In the present case, department has taken a view that the surrendered income of Rs.12.5 crore belongs to the members individually and not to the AOP hence, no dif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) paid by all the 03 members of AOP equally as self assessment tax as the relief has been claimed only with respect to a sum of Rs.1,58,68,840/- paid by the AOP as self assessment tax. It has been explained by the assessee that the cash seized during search is already considered in the hands of persons from whom the same was seized. Similarly, amount of Rs.35 lac paid by each member as self assessment tax (total Rs.1,05,00,000/-) has been considered in the hands of each member and therefore, relief is claimed only with respect to a sum of Rs.1,58,68,840/-. I am of the view that when the sum of Rs.1,46,46,900/- and Rs.1,05,00,000/- has been considered in the hands of members then the relief may also be granted to the assessee with respect to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el for the appellant-Revenue submits that initially the amount of Rs.12.5 crores was declared and disclosed by the AOP but subsequently the AOP had filed a revised return declaring nil income. Therefore, the conditions for exoneration from penalty under Section 271AAA were not satisfied. It is stated that the individual-assessees in their return of income had not declared proportionate amount of Rs.12.5 cores nor had they substantiated their statements as to the manner in which the income was derived. 7. We have considered the said contention, but do not find any merit in the same. The AOP consisted of Virendara Kumar Gupta, Sarad Jain and Sudhir Jain. Initially, the AOP had declared the entire undisclosed income. AOPs are taxed at maxi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
