9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 849X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of income overlap each other. Assessing Officer, in this case, has specifically mentioned that the penalty proceedings are initiated under both the limbs. All the facts relating to the share application money and share premium and that being not genuine transaction and the identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribers being not proved have been duly discussed in the assessment order and based on the aforesaid facts, the penalty proceedings have been initiated. It is not a case where the assessee was not aware of the facts of the case or the charge upon which the penalty proceedings have been initiated. The assessee neither come forward with any explanation during the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act nor during the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.1211/-. The return was originally processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter reassessment was carried out by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 of the Act and the income of the assessee was determined at Rs.14,750/-. Subsequently, the ld. CIT(A), Kolkata exercised his revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and noted that during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has not verified genuineness and source of the share capital and share premium as well as identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribers. He, therefore, held the assessment order dated 26.04.2010 passed u/s 147 of the Act was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for assessment afresh. Thereafter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relating to the quantum additions, no one had appeared on behalf of the assessee before the CIT(A) in the appellate proceedings and, therefore, the quantum additions had been confirmed by the CIT(A). Thereafter the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. He has further submitted that the only issue raised by the assessee in this appeal is that the Assessing Officer had failed to specify the limb on which the penalty proceedings was sought to be initiated and the penalty has been imposed on both the limbs. The ld. DR has submitted that in this case both the limbs were applicable as the assessee had furnished particulars of income by showing receipts of bogus share capital and share premium in its accounts and it al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
