TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (7) TMI 9
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order by taking the facts of A.Y. 03.04. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer noted in his assessment order that the assessee did not file his return of income in the normal course. However, FIU-IND had intimated that the assessee had made substantial investments. It was also intimated that the assessee had made investments in various schemes using 20 folios. In most of the folios, the invested amount was of the order of Rs.45,000/- to Rs.48,000/-. The investment amount was kept less than Rs. 50,000/- to evade the KYC norms. FIU-IND detected investment and informed the ADIT, Ahmadabad. In pursuance to this information, the ADIT issued summons u/s. 131(1A) to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny return for A Y 2003-04. The FIU-IND had disseminated information that the assessee Sh. Praladbhai R Patel had made investment of substantial amount by using 20 folios in various schemes. In most of the folios, the investment amount was Rs. 45,000/- to Rs. 48.000/- which appeared to be an attempt to avoid K Y C. He was also joint holder in some folios by using several bank accounts. Investment of substantial amount by using multiple folios and investment just below threshold limit were considered suspicious and The Asstt. Director of Income- Tax (Investigation), Unit ll(2) had initiated investigation into the matter by way of issuing summons u/s 131 of the I T Act, 1961 on 28/04/2009 to Shri Prahadbhai R Patel. During the proceedings befo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../- for the A Y 2003-04. Thereafter, notice u/s143(2), dated 01/07/2010 issued and duly served upon the assessee. Details required for completion of assessment required vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 22/09/2010. In response to above notices, A R of the assessee attended and order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act was passed computing total income of Rs.7,30,789/-. Penalty proceedings were initiated separately for concealment of true particulars of income. Notice u/s. 274 r.w.s, 271(1)(C) issued along with the assessment order and duly served upon the assessee. The assessee did not respond to the notice so issued. A fresh notice was issued on 16.05.2011 requesting the assessee to show cause as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I T Act should ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e-tax authorities." In this case. Investigations carried out by the Department revealed that the assessee had made investments out of undisclosed sources and when confronted by the Department, in response to a notice U/s. 148, the assessee filed a return of income declaring the hitherto undisclosed income. Had the investigations been not carried out by the Department, the sources of investments made by the assessee would have not been brought to taxation. The assessee had therefore committed default by concealing true particulars of his income to the extent of Rs.7,30,789/- for which he was liable for penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act. The assessee had deliberately and willfully evaded the resultant tax of Rs.2,19,236/-. In this case, mi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ITR 99 (S.C)." 5. At the time of hearing, before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee besides making other submission also submitted that the Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(A) were wrong in saying that penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer on 16.05.2011 was not complied with by the assessee. For making this submission, reliance was placed on Annexure F of the paper book at page no.32, which is a letter addressed to the Assessing Officer dated 24th May, 2011 in reply to penalty notice dated 16.05.2011 to the Assessing Officer, which was claimed to have been received by the office of the Assessing Officer on 26th May, 2011 as evidenced by the seal of Assessing Officer's office of even date. It was further submitted that unless t....