2012 (11) TMI 1145

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act on 11-10-2007. The taxpayer has filed e-return disclosing a total income of Rs. 8,39,77,210. However, the assessing officer determined the total income at Rs. 8,41,37,212. The ld.DR further submitted that the managing director of the taxpayer has admitted at the time of search to offer Rs. 2 crores over and above the income returned regularly for the assessment year 2007-08. However, while filing the return of income for the assessment year 2008- 09, the taxpayer has disclosed only Rs. 1.21 crores as additional income under the head 'business income'. According to the ld.DR, the taxpayer has not substantiated the manner in which the income of Rs. 1.21 crores was offered as additional income for the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cannot be any penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act. 4. We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the material available on record. Admittedly, there was search in the premises of the taxpayer and the taxpayer has offered Rs. 2 crores over and above what was returned for the earlier assessment years. However, while filing the return, the taxpayer has returned only a sum of Rs. 1.2 crores over and above what was returned in earlier years. The assessing officer computed the income only at Rs. 8,41,37,212 and the difference between the returned income and the assessed income is very meager. As rightly submitted by the ld.representative for the taxpayer when the taxpayer substantiated the manner in which the undisclosed income was de....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he fringe benefit on the basis of the particulars furnished by the taxpayer. According to the ld.representative, the taxpayer has claimed that the expenditure incurred is not liable for fringe benefit tax. Therefore, it claimed exemption. However, the assessing officer rejected the claim of the taxpayer and assessed the fringe benefit tax. In order to avoid litigation, the taxpayer did not agitate the issue. Once a claim was made legally, mere disallowance of the claim would not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars. According to the ld.representative, the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs Reliance Petroproducts 322 ITR 158 (SC) would be squarely applicable to the facts of the case. 7. We ha....