TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 1290
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....leted on 29.12.2009 u/s 143(3) of the Act by framing assessment at Rs. 2,34,55,598/- on the ground that the some loose papers found containing entries for the period from 1st April 2006 to 29th July 2006 totaling to Rs. 18,87,575/- and another amount of Rs. 1,95,40,372/- which did not contain dates of entry. Since the impounded documents were found in the possession of the assessee, the AO concluded that the above amount of Rs. 2,14,27,947/- was unaccounted receipts of the business from custom's house agency. The AO also found that the assessee has debited an amount of Rs. 1,13,36,910/- under the head Cargo Handling Expenses, CWC/Maserk/Dock Fees, Documentation charges, Loading and unloading charges and Transportation charges and various ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0% of Rs. 2,14,27,947/- after taking into account the expenses which the assessee may have incurred to earn these receipts, by the CIT(A)-24, Mumbai. Moreover, CIT(A) Mumbai has categorically held that the total receipts of Rs. 2,14,27,947/- were not accounted for by the assessee in books of account. The same view is confirmed by the ITAT, Mumbai in its order dated 15/3/2013 wherein ITAT, Mumbai has elaborately discussed each one of the entries in the impounded documents. Thus, the basis of initiation of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of IT. Act, 1961 at the time of assessment, was clearly mentioned in the assessment order and when the second notice was issued by the Assessing Officer, the penalty proceedings stood revived and the revised notice ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee's case, the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income as well as concealment of income are both applicable because assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of business receipts of Rs. 2,14,27,947/- by excluding the same from the turnover of receipts and expenses shown by the assessee in the return of income and then concealing income of, Rs. 21,42,795/- even though the documents were detected and impounded during the course of survey u/s. 133A of LT. Act, 1961. Therefore, it is held that the levy of penalty of Rs. 21,42,795/- @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded is fully justified in -light of the orders .of ITAT, Mumbai which has fully confirmed the findings of the CIT(A) about the unaccounted business receipts and incom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat it was trite law that no penalty could be levied on the basis of addition which were made on estimation and on the basis of surmises and conjecture. The ld. AR, therefore, submitted that the order of the ld.CIT(A) be set aside and the AO be directed to deleted the penalty. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR heavily relied on the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the addition confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) was based upon the paper impounded during the course of survey on the assessee though the addition was reduced from Rs. 2,14,47,294 to Rs. 21,42,795/- therefore, the penalty was rightly levied by invoking the Explanation (1) of Section 271(1 (c) of the Act as the assessee has concealed the particulars of income and prayed ....