9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 607X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interference and pleaded to dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee. We do not find any merits in the ground raised by the assessee namely without allowing any deduction on account of income already assessed in the A.Y. 2007-08. Both the Ld. Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) has levied and confirmed the penalty only on the addition of Rs. 6,14,178/-. Therefore, the ground raised by the assessee is rejected and the appeal of assessee is dismissed. - ITA No. 643/Ahd/2015 - - - Dated:- 27-4-2022 - SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI T. R. SENTHIL KUMAR , JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri R. R. Makwana , Sr. D. R . ORDER PER T. R. SENTHIL KUMAR , JUDICIAL MEMBER : This is an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the income to the extent of Rs. 88,86,449/- out of the total receipt of Rs. 1,31,32,037/- was assessed in the immediately preceding year namely A.Y. 2007-08 on the basis of TDS certificate issued by the party. Consequently, the income was assessed and returned the income of Rs. 13,25,098/- without considering the fact that when the part of total receipt have already been assessed in the immediately preceding year, deduction should not have been allowed to that extent during the year under consideration i.e. 2008-09. 3. The Ld. Assessing Officer, after considering the above reply, has held that the assessee has not filed return of income for the A.Y. 2008-09 voluntarily under Section 139(1) of the Act. However, on issuance of notices und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion assessing the total income at Rs. 13,25,098/-. Thus, it is very clear that the income was disclosed by the appellant by way of filing of return of income only in pursuant to notice u/s. 148 of the IT Act and not suo moto and voluntarily. Thus, this is a clear case of concealment of particulars of income and therefore Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act is applicable in the case of appellant. I therefore confirm the penalty of Rs. 1,87,938/- as levied by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, the grounds of appeal of the appellant are dismissed. 5. Aggrieved by the Appellate Order the assessee is before us raising the following ground:- The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
