Depreciation and routine compliance expenses disallowance did not prove inaccurate particulars or misreporting; penalty sustained only on foreign trav...
The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed u/ss 271(1)(c) and 271AAB of the Income Tax Act for additional income brought to tax owing to a search and seizure action. The Tribunal observed that the income was assessed based on material seized during the search, supported by a declaration u/s 131. The assessee's contention of voluntary surrender was rejected, as the additional income came to light solely due to the search action. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedents, including MAK Data Pvt Ltd and K P Madhusudan, which established that penalty is leviable when income is finally assessed higher than the returned income, irrespective of whether the variation arose from voluntary surrender or otherwise. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders for the relevant assessment years and restored the penalty orders.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed u/ss 271(1)(c) and 271AAB of the Income Tax Act for additional income brought to tax owing to a search and seizure action. The Tribunal observed that the income was assessed based on material seized during the search, supported by a declaration u/s 131. The assessee's contention of voluntary surrender was rejected, as the additional income came to light solely due to the search action. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedents, including MAK Data Pvt Ltd and K P Madhusudan, which established that penalty is leviable when income is finally assessed higher than the returned income, irrespective of whether the variation arose from voluntary surrender or otherwise. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders for the relevant assessment years and restored the penalty orders.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
