9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 1190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s u/s 147 of the Act on the basis that there were certain entries in the bank account of assessee for which there was no proper explanation. AO also noticed that the assessee produced fabricated copy of bank account along with books of accounts and as such formed the belief that the assessee s income had escaped assessment. In the present case, the assessee although filed the objection against the initiation of re-assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act, however, withdrew those objection and surrendered a sum of 50,00,000/- subject to no penal action. In the instant case, when the assessee himself withdrew the objection filed against the initiation of re-assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act, surrendered a sum of 50,00,000/- and paid the tax thereon, in our opinion, the ld. CIT was fully justified in upholding the proceedings initiated by the AO u/s 147 of the Act and in confirming the addition of 50,00,000/-. We, therefore, don t see any merit in this appeal of the assessee X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 37" 3. During the course of hearing the ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made in the aforesaid application and prayed to condone the delay. In his rival submissions, the ld. Sr. DR submitted that there was no reasonable cause in filing the appeal be deleted, therefore the delay should not be condoned. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it appears that the assessee made a conditional surrender of ₹ 50,00,000/- and paid the tax on the said surrender subject to no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee also furnished copy of order sheet dated 21.12.2009 which is placed at page no. 2 of the assessee's compilation, in the said order sheet also it is mentioned "subject to no penal action." Therefore, the assessee under bona fide believe that no penalty will be levied, surrendered ₹ 50 lacs and did not prefer an appeal. In our opinion, there was a reasonable cause in filing the appeal belated, therefore the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 5. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal :- " 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to the confirmation of addition while ground no. 9 is general in nature. Facts of the case related to this issue in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 13.2.2008 declaring an income of ₹ 2,76,890/- which was processed on 14.3.2008 on the returned income. Later on the case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was framed at an income of ₹ 2,83,890/-. Subsequently, it came to the notice of the AO that the assessee has furnished fabricated bank statement which resulted into escapement of income to the tune of ₹ 57,95,000/-. The AO accordingly issued the notice u/s 148 of the Act after taking necessary sanction / approval. In response to the said notice, no return of income was filed, thereafter the AO issued a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act and the assessee filed the objection against the reopening u/s 147 of the Act on 21.09.2010. However, vide letter dated 15.11.2010, the assessee withdrew his objections to the reasons recorded for initiation of re-assessment proceedings and surrendered income of ₹ 50,00,000/- for taxation, subject to no penal action. It was also stated that this surrender was being done with clean hands and the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll in the trap laid by the assessee and failed to consider the particular entries in the copy of bank account of the assessee supplied by the bank, thus to repair the damage already done, correctly initiated the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws :- "(i) CIT vs. Shapoorji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC) (ii) Dhala v. CIT (1944) 12 ITR 341 (Pat) (iii) Dalal (Dr. Mr.) v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR (1963) 49 ITR 492 (Bom) (iv) Malegaon Electricity Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (1970) 78 ITR 466 (SC) (v) Sachdeva (SD) v. CIT (1972) 86 ITR 447 (P&H) (vi) CIT vs. Kalyanji & Co. (1969) 74 ITR 107 (Cal) (vii) Sohan Singh v. CIT (1986) 158 ITR 174(Del) (viii) ITO v. Radheshyam Ladia (1987) 166 ITR 134(SC) (ix) Consolidated Photo and Fin vest Ltd. v. ACIT (2006) 281 ITR 394 (Del) (x) Palaniswami (P) v. CIT (1977) 106 ITR 811 (Mad) (xi) Panchugurumurthy v. CIT (1995) 211 ITR 51(Mad) (xi) Ganga Saran & Sons (P) Ltd. v. ITO (1981) 130 ITR 1, (xii) ITO v. Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadar (1974) 97 ITR (xiii) Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. v. ITO (1999) 236 ITR 34" The Ld. CIT(A) accordingly held that the AO was perfectly justified in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
