9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 692X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C, Zurich accounts?" (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT erred in taking cognizance of the non-est revised returns of income filed beyond the time allowed u/s 139(5) of the Act to hold that the assessee voluntarily disclosed the impugned income and then proceeding on that incorrect premise to delete the aforesaid penalty? 2. Facts briefly stated are that, the assessee was an individual and non-resident so far as assessment year under consideration was concerned. For assessment year 2007-2008 the assessee had filed return of income on 31.7.2007 declaring total income of Rs. 8,31,287/-. Thereafter the assessee revised his income and further offered an income of Rs. 1,76,68,508/-. Notice u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g additional income of Rs. 1,03,49,908/- which according to CIT(A) was not voluntary because summons dated 29.9.2011 by ADIT (Inv)Unit-II(3), Mumbai had been issued u/s 131 of the Act. CIT (A) rejected reply of the assessee and by an order dated 8.12.2014 amended his earlier order dated 26.3.2014 and upheld levy of penalty to the extent it related to additional income of Rs. 1,03,49,908/- disclosed by assessee in his second revisional declaration. Against that order, appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Tribunal and Revenue also filed cross appeal to the extent of CIT(A) not adding Rs. 73,18,600/- declared in first revised declaration. 5. The Tribunal after hearing the parties, dismissed the original appeal filed by Revenue and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted earlier, the Assessing Officer finalized assessment u/s 143 r/w 147 of the Act by accepting income as per revised return without making any further addition or raising any fresh demand. Even additional income assessed at Rs. 1,76,68,508/- was exactly the same as returned by the assessee in the revised returns. 8. After hearing the parties and considering the material before them, the Tribunal found that second affidavit of 7.11.2011 declaring additional amount of Rs. 1,03,49,908/- due to mistake in calculating bank peak balance was filed not because of any issue of summons and declaration was purely because of the mistake committed in earlier calculation. The Tribunal came to a finding of fact that Revenue had no information of any und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
