TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Penalties for 2005-06 & 2006-07 quashed and canceled due to procedural errors and bonafide explanation.</h1> <h3>SHRI JULIUS FRANCIS PEREIRA Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER</h3> SHRI JULIUS FRANCIS PEREIRA Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER - TMI Issues:Penalty under section 271(1)(c) for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07.Analysis:Issue 1: Legal Representative's Authority- The deceased assessee's legal representative sought to be brought on record.- AO and Tribunal allowed the legal heir's representation.- Appeals were heard with the legal representative on record.Issue 2: Penalty for A.Y. 2005-06- Penalty imposed due to unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's account.- Assessee challenged penalty on technical grounds:- Jurisdictional issue of assessment location.- Limitation period for penalty proceedings.- Lack of prior approval for penalty exceeding prescribed limits.- Tribunal found the penalty order lacked prior approval as required by law.- Penalty for A.Y. 2005-06 was quashed based on procedural non-compliance.Issue 3: Merits of Penalty for A.Y. 2005-06- Assessee's legal heirs explained cash deposits as inheritance from father.- Tribunal did not delve into the merit issues due to quashing of penalty.- Tribunal questioned the validity of technical grounds raised by the assessee.Issue 4: Penalty for A.Y. 2006-07- Penalty imposed for unexplained cash deposits not offered for taxation.- Assessee claimed the cash belonged to deceased father and was for family distribution.- Tribunal found no evidence of the assessee's capability to earn such income.- Tribunal considered the voluntary disclosure and offered tax as a genuine act.- Penalty for A.Y. 2006-07 was canceled based on bonafide explanation.Conclusion:- The penalty for A.Y. 2005-06 was quashed due to procedural lapses.- The penalty for A.Y. 2006-07 was canceled based on the bonafide explanation.- The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed in both cases.This detailed analysis covers the legal judgment comprehensively, addressing the procedural and substantive issues involved in the penalty imposition for the respective assessment years.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
