TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 665
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue from the assessee. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the cash seized from the assessee is deemed to be adjusted against the tax due from the assessee. 2. "Brief facts of the case are that the assessee firm is dealing in the business of Developer and Builder. An action under section 132 of the Act was carried out on the assessee on 24.02.2009. During the course of search, assessee had made disclosure of income of Rs. 6,82,56,790/-. The said disclosure was specified to be in respect of sale of certain flats in La-Fonte and La-Marque projects and after adjusting cash expenses, the net income of Rs. 6,82,56,790/- was admitted and offered to tax. The return of income was f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....disclosure of income of Rs. 6,82,56,790/-. The said disclosure was specifically to be in respect of sale of flats in La-Fonte and La-Marque projects and after adjusting the cash expenses net income of Rs. 6,82,56,790/- was offerd to tax. The return of income was filed in the relevant year offering the said income. AO had initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAA only for the reason that all the conditions as specified in subsection (2) are not satisfied. In this respect it was submitted by assessee that subsequent to the search action on 24.02.2009 return of income was field within the prescribed time declaring income of Rs. 6,82,56,790/- which was enhanced to Rs. 7,99,82,150/- by the AO. It was further submitted that the returned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gular tax. Even though it has been remitted as regular tax, the fact of the matter is the entire seized cash which was in the custody of the department, had all along been requested by the assessee to adjust against the tax alongwith interest on the income as disclosed. Further, there is no dispute that the appellant has specified and substantiated the manner in which the income has been derived. The only fact disputed is whether tax alongwith interest if any, tax has been paid under the provisions. When a request has been made when the return was filed for adjusting the tax against the income as disclosed and when the seized cash has finally been adjusted by the A.O against the tax demanded, the appellant cannot be penalized stating that t....