TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 944
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng independent examination and appreciation of material facts containing material particulars on the merits thereof ? (ii) Whether, under the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on consideration of the additional evidences, the admission thereof for case adjudication is necessarily to be examined ?" 3. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The business of jewellery is being carried by the HUF under the name and style of Nikka Mal Babu Ram (JJ group) and the constitution of the group is, namely, Nikka Mal Babu Ram and Sons controlled by Shri Kamal Kant Jain and his son, Mandeep Jain ; Nikka Mal Babu Ram and Sons (the Jewellery Arcade) run by Akhil Jain and Smt. Pooja Jain and Nikka Mal Babu Ram and Sons (JJ group) by the appellant, Jawahar Jain (HUF), and other coparcener, Rohit Jain, Neeraj Jain (Sons), proprietary concern of the appellant (HUF). The appellant was covered by action of search under section 132 of the Act on October 27, 2006. A consignment of gold belonging to the appellant being stock in trade (business asset) was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onally Rs. 2.50 crores attributable for the discrepancies for the purpose of settling the controversy but the said return had been treated as non est being beyond the permitted period under section 139(5) of the Act which ended on March 31, 2008. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act on December 30, 2008, annexure A.13. The aforesaid assessment order was accepted and the tax was paid on December 8, 2008, annexure A.14 without having challenged the same in the appellate proceedings before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ("the CIT(A)"), the Tribunal, etc. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated through notice issued on December 30, 2008, annexure A.15. Written submissions were furnished by the assessee. After examining the matter, penalty under section 271(1)(c) was levied on June 23, 2009, annexure A.18 at Rs. 67,75,500. The said order was challenged before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by the assessee. Vide order dated May 26, 2011, annexure A.20, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dismissed the appeal. Still not satisfied, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal and praye....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cuments so as to retract from the said statement was filed under rule 29 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, in 2012 after almost expiry of six years and that too during the course of penalty proceedings at the second appeal stage. The additions of unexplained income had been made by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings and the assessee had accepted the tax liability and paid taxes amounting to Rs. 63,81,840 as no appeal was filed against the assessment order. In the revised return filed on December 2, 2008, the surrendered amount of Rs. 2.5 crores was shown therein when the assessee was cornered during the assessment proceedings. Even during the penalty proceedings before the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), there was nothing to show that the jewellery found at the premises of the assessee on October 27, 2006, was accounted money with the assessee. No satisfactory explanation had been furnished to demonstrate why the material sought to be produced now could not be produced earlier. Thus, in our opinion, in view of the above, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application for additional evidence filed by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) affirmed the aforesaid order of penalty, which was upheld by the Tribunal with the following observations : "14. We have heard the rival submissions carefully and do not find force in the submissions of the learned counsel of the assessee. First of all admittedly during search excess cash, stocks of excess gold, diamond, platinum, silver was found and initially assessee voluntarily agreed to surrender all these items of cash and stock by way of surrender of Rs. 2.5 crores. During statement recorded, no objection was raised to the valuation. In the statement itself it was clarified that the assessee has discussed with his lawyer before making the surrender . . . xxxxxxxxxxxxx 17. In a nut-shell it can be said that the assessee had surrendered a sum of Rs. 2.5 crores and he could have easily sought immunity against the penalty under Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c). How ever, the assessee did not own his commitment and retra....