TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (11) TMI 392
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re for adjudication. The assessee's lone effective ground of appeal surviving for adjudication reads as under: "(1). On the facts and circumstances of the case and as per law, penalty u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act, was required to be cancelled by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)." 3. The assessee was partner of M/s. Shripal Corporation and Shripal Associates, filed its return of income showing income of Rs.4,56,683/-. The return was processed u/s 143 (1) of the Act and assessment was finalized u/s 143(3) of the Act on 30th November, 2006 wherein the learned AO has made an addition of Rs.15 lacs on account of unexplained investment. Subsequently, the learned AO initiated penalty proceedings and levied penalty of Rs.4,50,0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d inaccurate particular of true income. 8. From the discussion above, it is established fact that the assessee has willfully, knowingly and without reasonable cause, furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, which lead to concealment of income. Thus, the explanation (1) of Section 271 of the I. T. Act, is clearly applicable in the case of the assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealing the income for which it is liable for penalty u/s. 271 (1) ( c ) of the Act. 9. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances available on records and the discussion made above, I am levying the penalty in respect of concealment of income totaling Rs.15,00,000/-. The minimum penalty in assessee's case @ 100% of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te that the findings of the CIT(A) have been upheld by the Hon'ble ITAT in their order dated 19.11.2009 in ITA No.138/Ahd/2008. Relevant abstracts of the order are reproduced hereunder:- 34. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials on record and also gone through the orders of Assessing Officer and CIT(A). We find that the Assessing Officer held that the assessee along with his partners has disclosed a sum of Rs.2,75 lacs in two firms, namely, M/s. Shripal Corporation and M/s. Shripal Associates. But this was in respect of construction activities. The assessee has not submitted any evidence in respect of ornaments are part of regular holding and disclosed under VDIS'97. The Assessing Officer further held that in letter No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y enquiry in respect of on money for sale of shops. We also hold that it is duty of the A. O. to make a further enquiry when Mr. Pravinbhai has retracted from his statement and the A. O. without making enquiry; it cannot be held that the assessee has received on money in respect of selling of shops. We also find that ADI has collected material from the office of Shri Pravinbhai who is architect and all materials were seized from his office. Therefore it cannot be said that all papers relate to Ratan Market. Therefore, no addition can be made on mere statement recorded during the search proceedings. Shri Pravinbhai has retracted from his statement and he has clarified under what position he has made a statement, therefore in absence of an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the basis of some dumb documents." The learned AR further argued stating that the family of the assessee had declared substantial jewelry under the VDIS scheme in the year 1997 for 5901.400 grams. It was further submitted that the Hon'ble Tribunal in its consolidated order dated 19-09-2009 had confirmed the order of the learned CIT(A) only on the basis that the assessee in his statement had made a disclosure for this investment which is factually incorrect because the assessee on the very next day had retracted to his statement by filing an affidavit. 7. The learned DR relied on the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the decisions relied upon by the assessee are on different footing and have no relevance with....