9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed income. We reiterate that he already admitted the same as income before the Settlement Commission. The Revenue strongly draws support from this action. There can hardly be any dispute about the settled legal position that quantum and penalty proceedings stand on different footing and each and every addition of undisclosed income does not lead to imposition of penalty. The present case is an instance where assessee has not been able to substantiate his explanation of having spent the impugned expenditure limit for his employer company for the purpose of the business and also the Revenue has failed to refer to the employer’s books so as to negate the same by holding that the very sums have not been claimed as expenditure. We reiter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he department would also record statement of Mr. Lalit K. Patel from whose resident some notings regarding has been recovered. This culminated into issuance of section 153C r.w.s. 153A notice dated 05-04-2006. The assessee filed his return on 30-04-2007 stating income of ₹ 1,10,881/-. The Assessing Officer took up scrutiny. The assessee stated therein that he had already approached Settlement Commission for offering additional income of ₹ 36,700/- along with similar other sums in preceding and succeeding assessment year. The Assessing Officer observed that Settlement Commission stood abated for want of order within the time period prescribed. He referred to incriminating evidence of Mr. Patel s statement alleged disclosing notin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The assessment order dated 30-09- 2009 accordingly treated the alleged expenditure sum limit salary and bonus thereby adding the impugned sum of ₹ 36,700/- as undisclosed income of the relevant previous year. The Assessing Officer further initiated the instant penalty proceedings alleging concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Case records reveal that the CIT(A) affirmed Assessing Officer s action. Quantum proceedings seem to have attained finality at this stage. 4. The Assessing officer resumed with the instant penalty proceedings. The assessee s reply appears to have averred that neither the facts of the case comprise of any concealment nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in view of the abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of incriminating material or otherwise which could prove that assessee s employer has not booked the corresponding sum as expenditure in its accounts maintained. The assessee s case is that he has spent the impugned sums for the purpose of the business of his employer. He fails to substantiate the same. This has led to assessment of the impugned sum in his hands as undisclosed income. We reiterate that he already admitted the same as income before the Settlement Commission. The Revenue strongly draws support from this action. There can hardly be any dispute about the settled legal position that quantum and penalty proceedings stand on different footing and each and every addition of undisclosed income does not lead to imposition of penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
