TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (6) TMI 151
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i Yadav. In response to notice under section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, the assessee filed the return in which undisclosed income was declared at Rs.2,09,435. The matter in respect of quantum of addition in the block assessment order travelled up to the Tribunal and after the order of the Tribunal, the undisclosed income stood determined at Rs. 8,45,950. After reducing the undisclosed income returned by the assessee, the addition in respect of undisclosed income was to the extent of Rs. 6,36,516. Such addition consisted of the following components. (1) Rs. 4,40,567 on account of jewellery. (2) Rs. 5,000 on account of contribution towards chit fund. (3) Rs. 1,90,949 addition based on income expenditure method. The Assessing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nnot be treated as an explanation to the source of the jewellery found. In respect of addition based on income expenditure method, the Tribunal was convinced that the income has to be computed on the basis of the material but in the circumstances and facts of the percentage, the difference between the unexplained expenditure and income is also to be added. Looking to the finding given by the Tribunal in the quantum appeal, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that it is not a case where penalty is to be imposed as the penalty is discretionary. Before us, the learned Departmental representative has filed the written submissions. The learned Departmental representative has submitted that no presumption can be taken that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (Raj) ; 222 CTR 258 ; and (2) CIT v. Dodsal Ltd. [2009] 312 ITR 112 (Bom). We have heard both parties. The first issue before us is to decide as to whether penalty imposable under section 158BFA(2) is discretionary or not. We have perused the decisions relied upon by the learned Departmental representative with respect to the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, these case law are of no help to the Revenue in deciding the issue before us as penalty under section 158BFA(2) is different from penalty under section 271(1)(c) as both sections are differently worded. The hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Satyendra Kumar Dosi [2009] 315 ITR 172 (Raj) held that it cannot be inferred that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... spite of the explanation given by the assessee, the hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain [2011] 339 ITR 351 (Guj) ; [2010] 235 CTR (Guj) 568 held that instruction No. 1916 dated May 11, 1994 can be considered to presume that the sources to the extent of jewellery stated in circular stands explained. If there is anything contrary noticed then the instruction may not be sufficient to explain the source of jewellery. We, therefore, feel that the assessee has given the explanation in respect of source of jewellery and the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has rightly referred to the fact that mother of the assessee was residing with the assessee. Therefore, there is no case of imposition of penal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p; Addition on account of unexplained cash 55,181 Excess cash of Kota stone 38,027 The assessee gave the explanation in respect of the above additions and the Assessing Officer has also considered the explanation though the Assessing Officer has imposed the penalty on the difference between undisclosed income determined as a result of the order of the Tribunal and the undisclosed income as returned by the assessee. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has observed that the addition of Rs. 4.60 lakhs is based on a slip of paper seized during the course of search and the statement of the assessee. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has referred to the order of the Tribu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re mentioned at the top is Rs. 4.50 lakhs. There are other 10 entries and the total of 10 entries is around Rs. 2.92 lakhs and the figures are in round figures. Against the different figures, the names of relatives are mentioned. For example Rs. 2,000, it is written as Papa, against Rs. 10,000 it is written as Chachi. The addition has been confirmed on the basis of the documents and there is no further material. The marriage was performed in the year 1996. The assessee in his explanation submitted that the details have been written in a haphazard manner. The assessee during the course of search stated that he will be able to explain the figures after referring to the books of account. The question which was asked to the assessee was in resp....