TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 533
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 31.7.2012 is bad in law and on facts. ii) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 158BFA(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. iii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, penalty u/s 158BFA(2) of Rs. 519,750/- is not leviable as no evidence indicating undisclosed income not disclosed in the block return, was unearthed during the course of search u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 conducted on 17.7.2012. iv) The appellant craves leave to alter, amend or add any other ground of appeal either before or during the course of hearing. 2. The first ground of appeal is general in nature and therefo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the income sought to be evaded." This ground of appeal is a legal ground and not agitated by Ld. DR and no further facts are required to be verified. Therefore it is admitted and to be adjudicated. 6. On the merits of the case Ld. AR submitted that regarding addition of the cash of Rs. 3,27,000/- the addition was made based on the statement of the appellant, which was retracted on 27.9.2009, and further the source of the case found was belonged to the saving of the entire family. Further Rs. 2,85,000/- belong to M/s. Cain Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. wherein assessee was the director and on the date of search as per the books of accounts of the company, cash balance of Rs. 6,29,336/- was available. Therefore, he submitted that the exp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot disclosed by the assessee in his return of income. The assessee has explained that cash found during the course of search being Rs. 40500 from the bedroom of the assessee, Rs. 2 85000 from the office of the assessee and Rs. 50,000 from the bedroom of the assessee's parents to be belonging to one of the company in which the appellant was one of the directors and on the date of search , that company was having cash on hand of Rs. 6.29 lakhs . This explanation of the assessee was disbelieved. Regarding, the source of the case found from the bedroom of the assessee's parents and from the bedroom of the assessee, it was submitted that they are out of the family savings. Concurrently the additions have been upheld in the hands of the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee as well as the assessment under section 143 (3) of the act . Affidavit of the appellant's mother was also submitted on 25/09/2002 wherein she claimed ownership of the said Jewellery worth Rs. 411432/-. This affidavit has not been controverted by revenue even in appellate proceedings of penalty. Further it was submitted that assessee should have been given the benefit of circular No. 1916 dated 11th may 1994 regarding the sources of jewellery in the hands of various persons of the family. It was further stated that if the benefit of the circular is given to the assessee that the addition also would not have been made based on several judicial precedents relied upon by the assessee. ii) We have considered the whether the pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nalty u/s 158BFA is leviable on the amount of undisclosed income or on the amount of tax on undisclosed income. In the present case Ld., assessing officer has levied penalty under section 158 BFA on undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee. He has not worked out amount of maximum penalty leviable and minimum penalty leviable and then determining the amount of the penalty levied .The provisions of section 158BFA (2) are as under :- "(2) The Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals), in the course of any proceedings under this Chapter, may direct that a person shall pay by way of penalty a sum which shall not be less than the amount of tax leviable but which shall not exceed three times the amount of tax so leviable in r....