9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 705X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e independent of each other. Furthermore, the assessee's specific case is that the jewellery, which were recovered during search operations, were the jewellery, which were declared during the VDIS, 1997 and the assessee would explain that the balance amounts were inherited by her, some of which sridhana, etc. The Tribunal considered a similar issue in the case of Shanmugapriya [ 2016 (7) TMI 1529 - ITAT CHENNAI] and reconciliation was permitted and ultimately, the assessee succeeded before the Tribunal. There is no reason as to why such an indulgence should not be granted to the assessee considering the plea raised by her and more particularly in the affidavit filed in support of the said miscellaneous petition. The expl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Appellant : Mr.Amrith Bhargav For the Respondent : Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, SSC And Mrs.K.G.Usharani COMMON JUDGMENT T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J. These appeals, filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act), are directed against the order dated 07.9.2018 made in MP.No.390/Chny/2017 in ITA.No.1450/ Mds/2016 and the order dated 23.11.2016 made in ITA.No.1450/Mds/2016 and C.O.No.150/ Mds/2016 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. The assessee has filed these appeals by raising the following substantial questions of law : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer ? ii. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that disclosure of assets under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme (VDIS), 1997 cannot qualify as disclosure for the purposes of Section 271(1)(c) ? iii. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in not considering the explanation offered by the assessee as to the source of investment in gold and jewelry in proper perspective ? And iv. Whether the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anding Counsel appearing for the respondent Revenue. 5. The assessee is an individual and is wife of one of the partners of Saravana Group. Search and seizure action was conducted on 18.8.2011 and there were other proceedings, which were initiated by the Department, which are not germane to the cases on hand. So far as the assessee is concerned, the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was completed by the Assessing Officer on 25.3.2014 assessing the appellant to tax. The assessee did not prefer any appeal against the said order dated 25.3.2014 and remitted the tax so quantified. 6. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by issuing notice dated 19.3.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment. This, in our considered view, is an incorrect interpretation because both the quantum assessment as well as the penalty proceedings are independent of each other. Furthermore, the assessee's specific case is that the jewelry, which were recovered during search operations, were the jewelry, which were declared during the VDIS, 1997 and the assessee would explain that the balance amounts were inherited by her, some of which sridhana, etc. The Tribunal considered a similar issue in the case of Shanmugapriya and reconciliation was permitted and ultimately, the assessee succeeded before the Tribunal. 10. In our considered view, there is no reason as to why such an indulgence should not be granted to the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quantum of jewelry. The Assessing Officer shall also take note of the decision in the case of Shanmugapriya and pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law uninfluenced by any of his observations made in the earlier order dated 23.9.2014. Consequently, the substantial questions of law are left open. No costs. 13. So far as TCA.No.954 of 2018 is concerned, this appeal is directed against the order dated 07.9.2018 in the miscellaneous petition rejecting the same as being barred by limitation. Now that we allowed TCA.No.82 of 2019 and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision, no adjudication is required in TCA.No.954 of 2018. Accordingly, TCA.No.954 of 2018 is closed and the substantial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
