9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 692X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on that incorrect premise to delete the aforesaid penalty? - HELD THAT:- Indisputable fact is that during the period when the assessee was non resident, from Assessment Year 2000-2001 to the year in question, the assessee was in employment with a U.S. Company and was resident of United States of America. In the year 2011 the assessee decided to settle down in India and after returning to India, filed an affidavit dated 07.09.2011 offering to tax income of ₹ 73,18,600/- being peak balance lying in the accounts of these two entities JWL and SF and for this purpose filed revised return on 20.9.2011. Immediately thereafter, assessee realized that he had committed a mistake in calculating peak balance lying in bank accounts held by these t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court came to conclusion that the surrender in that case was not voluntary. In the case at hand, the Tribunal has correctly come to a conclusion that the declaration was voluntary. Tribunal has not committed any perversity or applied incorrect principles to the given facts - No substantial question of law. - INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1424 OF 2017 - - - Dated:- 11-4-2022 - K.R. SHRIRAM N.R. BORKAR, JJ. Mr. PC Chhotaray for the appellant. Mr. Nitesh Joshi i/b Mr. Atul K. Jasani for the respondent. P.C. 1. Following substantial questions of law have been proposed in the appeal. (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon ble ITAT erred in deleting the penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ought to be levied on the amount of ₹ 1,76,68,508/- which was declared subsequent to the filing of original return of income. Consequently, penalty of ₹ 1,17,82,234 has been levied. Assessee carried the matter in appeal before CIT(A), who by an order dated 26.3.2014, deleted the entire penalty levied by the A.O. on the ground that the assessee has suo-moto and voluntarily offered additional income to tax and that the income which was offered for tax by the assessee in the revised returns of income was in any case, not chargeable to tax in India. Against the said decision, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Subsequent to his order dated 26.3.2014, CIT (A) issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act on 10.11.2014 requir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entities were nonresidents in as far as it is relevant for the purpose of the Act and did not have any source of income in India. 7. In the year 2011 the assessee decided to settle down in India and after returning to India, filed an affidavit dated 07.09.2011 offering to tax income of ₹ 73,18,600/- being peak balance lying in the accounts of these two entities JWL and SF and for this purpose filed revised return on 20.9.2011. Immediately thereafter, assessee realized that he had committed a mistake in calculating peak balance lying in bank accounts held by these two entities JWL and SF and therefore, made supplementary affidavit on 7.11.2011 offering to tax additional income of ₹ 1,03,49,908/-. Consequent thereto, second rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act, was not justified. 9. Mr. Chhotatray relied on Mak Data P.Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-(II) reported in Indian Kanoon-http://indiankanoon.org/doc/149438153 to submit that just because the assessee voluntarily disclosed his income, it can not be said that there was no concealment. Facts in the case at hand, are different in as much as in Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court came to conclusion that the surrender in that case was not voluntary. In the case at hand, the Tribunal has correctly come to a conclusion that the declaration was voluntary. 10. In our view, the Tribunal has not committed any perversity or applied incorrect principles to the given facts and when the facts and circumstances are properly anal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
