9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 1145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has filed e-return disclosing a total income of ₹ 8,39,77,210. However, the assessing officer determined the total income at ₹ 8,41,37,212. The ld.DR further submitted that the managing director of the taxpayer has admitted at the time of search to offer ₹ 2 crores over and above the income returned regularly for the assessment year 2007-08. However, while filing the return of income for the assessment year 2008- 09, the taxpayer has disclosed only ₹ 1.21 crores as additional income under the head business income . According to the ld.DR, the taxpayer has not substantiated the manner in which the income of ₹ 1.21 crores was offered as additional income for the year under consideration. Apart from that the tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 271AAA of the Act. 4. We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the material available on record. Admittedly, there was search in the premises of the taxpayer and the taxpayer has offered ₹ 2 crores over and above what was returned for the earlier assessment years. However, while filing the return, the taxpayer has returned only a sum of ₹ 1.2 crores over and above what was returned in earlier years. The assessing officer computed the income only at ₹ 8,41,37,212 and the difference between the returned income and the assessed income is very meager. As rightly submitted by the ld.representative for the taxpayer when the taxpayer substantiated the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inge benefit on the basis of the particulars furnished by the taxpayer. According to the ld.representative, the taxpayer has claimed that the expenditure incurred is not liable for fringe benefit tax. Therefore, it claimed exemption. However, the assessing officer rejected the claim of the taxpayer and assessed the fringe benefit tax. In order to avoid litigation, the taxpayer did not agitate the issue. Once a claim was made legally, mere disallowance of the claim would not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars. According to the ld.representative, the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs Reliance Petroproducts 322 ITR 158 (SC) would be squarely applicable to the facts of the case. 7. We have co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
