9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 901X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tify the claim of the assessee because it is not a case of the recovery of unaccounted cash / other articles such as jeweler etc. In simple sense, the assessee did not show the said amount as income in his return which came into existence only after the search was conducted on the assessee. There is no cogent and convincing evidence on record to which it can be assumed that the learned CIT(A) has passed the order wrongly and illegally. No distinguishable facts to the finding of the learned CIT(A) has been produced on record. In view of the above said discussion we are of the view that the learned CIT(A) has passed the order judiciously and correctly - Decided against assessee - I.T.A. No.5261/MUM/2012 - - - Dated:- 8-7-2016 - SHRI B.R.BA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the time of signing of MOU on 10.04.2000 and ₹ 26,00,000/- (Rs.8,00,000/- in cash and ₹ 18,00,000/- in cheque) at the time of signing of agreement and final handover. The assessee confirmed receiving the cash vide statement recorded u/s.131 of the Act recorded on 29.04.2006. Regarding confirmation of transaction, assessee filed return of income of ₹ 15,01,160/-. The assessee had purchased two flats in Krishna Kaveri CHS vide agreement dated 19.09.1997 from Captain Rex John Saldanha for a sum of ₹ 10,00,000/- each. Thus the cost of acquisition of two flats is ₹ 20,00,000/- each. Vide separate agreements dated 12.07.2000, the assessee sold these two flats to Smt. Asha Ghosh and Shri Dip Ghosh for agreement va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri CHS. 5.1 It is seen from the above facts that the short term capital gain of ₹ 8 lakhs was not disclosed in the original return of income by the assessee. Further, long term capital loss of ₹ 6,78,228/- was wrongly claimed and to that extent the assessee has filed inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee has admittedly sold the flats for ₹ 28 lakhs and received ₹ 20 lakhs in cheque and the remaining amount of ₹ 8 lakhs in cash which he has not offered for assessment as short term capital gain in the original return. The assessee offered the income accruing on account of receipt of cash on sale of flat only after the search was conducted on the assessee. It is thus apparent that the assessee has conc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount of tax sought to be evaded on the undisclosed income of ₹ 14,28,228/- is ₹ 4,88,438/-. I, therefore, propose to levy a penalty @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded amounting to ₹ 4,88,438/-. 3.1 After passing the order of the Assessing Officer assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who confirmed the said order. The learned CIT(A) has given the detailed finding in para no.5 and 6 of the order dated 02.07.2012 in question. However, concluding para 6.4.1 is hereby reproduced below:- 6.4.1 In this case total incomes returned in the original return of income and in the return to income filed in response to section 153A of the I.T. Act are positive and hence Explanation 4(a) is not applicable. Certainly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s jeweler etc. In simple sense, the assessee did not show the said amount as income in his return which came into existence only after the search was conducted on the assessee. There is no cogent and convincing evidence on record to which it can be assumed that the learned CIT(A) has passed the order wrongly and illegally. No distinguishable facts to the finding of the learned CIT(A) has been produced on record. In view of the above said discussion we are of the view that the learned CIT(A) has passed the order judiciously and correctly which does not require to interfere with at this appellant stage. 4. In result the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 8th July, 2016. - - Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
