9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls - Taxes and applicable interest were paid on the undisclosed income - Details of nature of undisclosed income and manner of earning was recorded in the statement of Virendara Kumar Gupta - It was stated that such an income was undisclosed income - Decided against Revenue. - Income Tax Appeal No. 563/2013, Income Tax Appeal No. 564/2013 - - - Dated:- 22-11-2013 - Sanjiv Khanna And Sanjeev Sachdeva,JJ. For the Appellant : Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Sr. Standing Counsel For the Respondent : Through Nemo. ORDER 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given a careful consideration to the case law cited by the assessee and am of the view that the relief may be allowed to the assessee. This reminds me the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs Ch. Atchaiah (218 ITR 239) wherein it is held that the 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come has to be determined at "Nil". 7. It was specifically asked to the assessee as to what happened to the cash of Rs.1,46,46,900/- seized during search which was requested to be treated as advance tax and also to the sum of Rs.1,05,00,000/- (Rs.35 lac x 3) 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 there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted in the hands of Virendara Kumar Gupta, Sarad Jain and Sudhir Jain. Taxes on Rs.12.5 crores have been duly paid. 5. The question raised in the present appeals is whether the two assessees are liable to pay penalty @ 10% under Section 271AAA. 6. Learned counsel 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
