9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1539X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able. The income was included in the return of income by increasing the closing stock, which resulted, increased of GP to 14%. Decision in case of MAK Data (2013 (11) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT) relied by ld CIT(A) is not applicable on the facts of the present case - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.4778/Mum/2014 - - - Dated:- 23-5-2018 - SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri N.O. Mehta (AR) For The Respondent : Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen (DR) Order under section (1) of Income tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by assessee under section 253 of the Income-tax Act (the Act) is directed against the order of ld. Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing the total income at ₹ 19,87,917/-. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order initiated the penalty under section 271(1)(c) on addition of ₹ 1,27,628/- on account of difference in purchases made from Leader Electricals P. Ltd. and the declaration of income of ₹ 40,01,181/- in the form of stock found during the survey under section 133A on 17.03.2010. The Assessing Officer levied the penalty @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. The Assessing Officer levied the penalty of ₹ 12,75,802/-. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the penalty qua the addition of ₹ 1,27,628/- was deleted. However, it was confirmed in respect of declaration of income of ₹ 40,01,181/- during the survey under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue supported the order of authorities below. The ld. DR for the Revenue submits that admission of assessee was in consequence of the act of survey team. The assessee has suppressed the stock and the circumstances of the result of survey leads to admission by the assessee in disclosing stock. The assessee declared stock when he was cornered by survey team. 5. We have considered the rival submission of the parties and have gone through the orders of authorities below. There is no dispute about the survey carried at the premises of assessee on 17.03.2010. Further, there is no dispute that during the course of survey, the assessee declared stock of ₹ 40,01,181/- after the survey, the assessee filed his ret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the penalty on addition of ₹ 1,27,628/- and the additional income of ₹ 40,01,181/- declared in the form of stock. Thus, the Assessing Officer levied the penalty total concealed income of ₹ 41,28,809/-, the Assessing Officer worked out the minimum penalty @ 100% at ₹ 12,75,802/-. We have further noted that the ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty qua the addition of ₹ 1,27,628/-. We are surprise that one the penalty qua the addition of ₹ 1,27,628/ was deleted, the ld. CIT(A) still confirmed the penalty of ₹ 12,75,802/-. As we have already noted that there is no satisfaction of Assessing Officer at the time of passing the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has not recorded the satisfaction that the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax return, particular of income had been duly furnished and the surrendered amount of income was duly reflected in the income-tax return. The question was whether the particulars of income were concealed by the assessee not. It would depend upon the issue as to whether concealment had reference to the income-tax return filed by the assessee, viz., whether concealment was to be found in the income-tax return. The Hon ble Delhi High Court further held that no doubt, the discrepancies were found during the survey. This has yielded income from the assessee in the form of amount surrendered by the assessee. Presently, we are not concerned with the assessment of income, but the moot question is to whether this would attract penalty upon the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
