9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 1178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... computation of income, the assessee has offered only ₹ 12,00,000/- as gifts and during the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee further agreed for the addition of ₹ 2,00,000/- out of the balance gift amount. The explanation of the assessee that the amount has been offered to purchase peace of mind and to avoid unnecessary litigation is not a valid reason as per the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of MAK Data ltd. (2013 (1) TMI 574 - DELHI HIGH COURT ) which has been subsequently confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court [2013 (11) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT ]. Considering all these facts in totality, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). - Decided against assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the return of income for the year was filed on 12.8.2005 declaring total income of ₹ 9,54,828/-. A survey u/s. 133A of the Act was conducted on 28.6.2006 at the office premises of M/s. Mahasagar Securities Pvt. Ltd. It was found in the course of survey that Shri Mukesh M. Choksi, Director of the said company was giving accommodation entries of Long Term Capital gains, business loss etc as per the requirements of his clients against receipt of cash and his commission. Enquiries were conducted to trace out the actual beneficiaries who had taken the accommodation entires. It was found that the assessee, her hus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oid litigation and claimed that the gifts were genuine. After considering the facts and submissions, the AO was convinced that the assessee has concealed particulars of income and levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act at ₹ 21,39,480/-. 8. Aggrieved by this, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A). It was strongly contended before the Ld. CIT(A) that during the course of the survey, no incriminating document or any other material was found and it was further claimed that to avoid unnecessary litigation, the assessee offered the gift received for taxation. After considering the facts and the submissions and following the decision of the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 1441 to 1444/M/08, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty levied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
