9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 1190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e had made surrender of Rs. 50,00,000/- subject to no penal action but while framing the assessment, the AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act and the CIT(A) vide order dated 30.12.2011 upheld the proceeding initiated by the AO u/s 147 of the Act and confirmed the addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- accepting the surrender made by the assessee. However, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 7,13,535/- made by the AO on other grounds. It was submitted that since the conditional surrender had been accepted by the AO and the CIT(A), the assessee did not file appeal against the order passed by the CIT(A) and it was only when the AO imposed the penalty of Rs. 17,00,000/- vide order dated 30.07.2012, the assessee after recei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 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 Rs. 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 Rs. 50 lacs and did not pref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the assessment u/s 147 / 143(3) of the Act without deciding the objections, first, raised by the appellant before him; hence the order passed by the ITO was bad in law, liable to be quashed. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 50 lac made by the Assessing Officer, without application of mind and therefore, the additions made by him was uncalled for and be deleted from the income of the appellant. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the grounds raised by the appellant in respect of addition of Rs. 50 lac on surmises and conjectures and therefore, order passed by him is not sustainable in law. 8. That the ld. CIT(A) did not appreciate the fact that the A.O. had wrongly rejected the books of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... done with clean hands and the surrendered amount represented past savings kept in the house for future unforeseen events. The assessee stated the sources of alleged amount as under :- S. NO. Amount Sources of fund 1. Rs. 10,00,000/- Rs. 12,00,000/- received from father before 40 years during family arrangements. 2. Rs. 40,00,000/- Advance money received in April, 2006 for sale of two houses--Rs. 15,00,000/- for house at Charthawal and Rs. 25,00,000/- for house at Muzaffarnagar 7. The AO, however, did not find any merit in this submission of the assessee that the alleged amount was capital receipts and was duly entered in the books of accounts and credited in "Mohd. Irshad personal fund A/c". The AO also rejected the books o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s considered by the AO at the time of original proceedings was patently wrong. He further observed that the AO due to lack of vigilance fell 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le time was lapsed. It was also submitted that the assessee was pressurized to make the surrender of the impugned amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- to avoid litigation and alternatively assessee was so much mentally perturbed that he thought it better to make the surrender. Therefore, the initiation of proceedings u/s 148 was bad in law since no information had come before the AO to form a belief based on reasons and the assessee being illiterate person surrendered amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- subject to no penal action to avoid any dispute of litigation and also to purchase peace of mind and withdrawing of objection against reopening was also as a matter of condition. 11. In his rival submissions, the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
