9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 1016X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee in both the appeals are reproduced herein below for reference: AY: 2007-08 "1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty u/s. 27(1) (c) of ₹ 62,000/- levied by the A.O." AY: 2008-09 "1) The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty u/s. 27(1) (c) of ₹ 35,,000/- levied by the A.O." 2) The total disclosure or ₹ 98731/- consist of, ₹ 30750/- Investment in purchase of dollar ₹ 67981/- Maturity value of Post office recurring deposit in the name of minor daughter ₹ 98731/- Total The investment in post office recurring deposit of ₹ 67981/- was not found during search but declared by the assessee suo motto vide filing return u/s. 153A (1) (b) of which should not attrac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sure of ₹ 75,00,000/- on a round about basis on account of difference in stock of Fakirsons Pepcam Pvt. Ltd., of which the assessee is a Director. The showing of income of ₹ 1,76,600/- is based on lose papers found and seized during search and for this expenditure, no statement u/s. 132(4) with regard to admission of income represented by these loose papers was made. Hence, the contention of assessee that his case is covered by section 271AAA (2) is not acceptable. As regards contention of assessee that penal provisions of section 271 (1) (c ) are not applicable, it is submitted that this contention is not correct because the income of ₹ 1,76,000/- which was offered in the return filed in response to notice u/s. 153A was n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee carried the matter before the learned CIT(A), the learned CIT(A) observed that search was conducted in the case of the assessee after 01-06-2007, therefore the assessee's case, is not covered u/s 271AAA of the Act because on the date of search viz. 15-10-2008 the assessee had already filed return of income on 04-07-2008 and 10-07-2008 showing income at ₹ 3,75,220/- and ₹ 5,00,720/- without including the subsequent disclosed amount of ₹ 1,76,600/- and Rs,.98,641/- for both the assessment years. The assessee had filed revised return of income at ₹ 5,51,820/- and ₹ 5,31,470/- on 25-06-2010, i.e., only after the search, declaring the undisclosed income of ₹ 1,76,600/- and ₹ 30,750/-. The l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e group consisting of the assessee company, sister concerns, and cases of directors. It was argued that in the return filed on 25.6.2010 at an amount of ₹ 47,87,940 following amounts were declared under the head income from other sources: Diesel and petrol purchase of ₹ 15,048 Tanker Driver salary and incentives to employees of Rs.7,32,149 Unaccounted income Rs.7,47,197 And that the return of ₹ 47,87,940 filed on 25.6.2010 included that disclosure comprising ₹ 7,47,197. It was argued that as subsequent to search the appellant had offered disclosure in his return, which was accepted in the order passed u/s. 143(3) r. w. s. 153A (1) (b) dated 30.11.2010, no penalty was leviable in view of provisions of section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any who is one amongst the group concerns, to claim benefit u/s 271AAA of the Act though its proceedings were completed u/s 133A read with section 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, we hereby delete the penalty levied by the learned AO which was further confirmed by the learned CIT(A)." 6. It is pertinent to mention that the assessee who is one of the director of the Company M/s. Balaji Formalin Pvt. Ltd., had already made a disclosure of ₹ 75,00,000/- with regard to himself and his associate concerns in order to escape the wrath of the penalty provisions u/s 271 AAA of the Act. Since, the facts and circumstances of the case of the Company M/s. Balaji Formalin Pvt. Ltd., is identical with that of the assessee's case for both the assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
