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>ITAT upholds CIT(A)'s decision on surrendered income under Income Tax Act 1961</h1> <h3>ACIT-1 (1), Bhopal Versus Shri Sudeep Maheshwari AND Vice-Versa</h3> ACIT-1 (1), Bhopal Versus Shri Sudeep Maheshwari AND Vice-Versa - TMI Issues:1. Addition of surrendered income under section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Validity of penalty proceedings initiation.Analysis:Issue 1: Addition of surrendered income under section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:The case involved appeals in quantum and penalty proceedings for the assessment years 2010-11 & 2008-09. The revenue appealed against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 2,25,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer based on income surrendered by the assessee during a search action. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, leading to the revenue's appeal. The revenue argued that the deletion was unjustified, citing a decision by the Delhi High Court. The assessee contended that no incriminating material was found during the search, and the surrendered income was due to mental pressure. The ITAT, after considering the arguments and case laws, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. It emphasized the need for corroborative evidence to support additions based on statements recorded under section 132(4) and found the revenue failed to establish a connection between the surrendered income and incriminating material. Thus, the revenue's appeal was dismissed.Issue 2: Validity of penalty proceedings initiation:In the appeal by the assessee, the challenge was to the validity of penalty proceedings initiation. The assessee argued that the notice initiating the penalty was legally flawed, rendering the proceedings invalid. The ITAT observed that the notices issued for penalty proceedings did not comply with the requirements set by the jurisdictional High Court. The absence of specific charges in the notice led to the conclusion that the penalty proceedings were vitiated. Citing the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court, the ITAT quashed the penalty order as being bad in law. Consequently, the appeal by the assessee was allowed.In conclusion, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of surrendered income and quashed the penalty order due to the flawed initiation of penalty proceedings. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, with the revenue's appeal being dismissed, and the assessee's appeal being allowed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
