2017 (3) TMI 23

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as impounded wherein transactions pertaining into the previous year relevant to the AY 2006-07. In the return of income the assessee has shown only an amount of Rs. 72,00,000/- as investment made in the land purchase. However, from the impounded material, it was found that an amount of Rs. 90,00,000/- had been invested in the purchase of land. The difference amount of Rs. 18,00,000/- was treated as unexplained income in the hands of the assessee firm by the AO. The said addition was confirmed by the CIT(A) as well as ITAT. 3. Thereafter, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by issuing notice dated 24/10/2011 on the ground that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income while furnishing the return of inc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nsaction. It is clear that the appellant had made the payment of Rs. 18 lakh out of undisclosed sources and this represented the appellant unaccounted income which had not been disclosed to the Department even after survey. The honourable ITAT vide it's order ITA number 664/HYD/10 in the case of the appellant has clearly held that the amount of Rs. 18 lakhs represented the unaccounted investment in the hands of the appellant. 5.10......... 5.11 It is very clear from the above facts that the appellant had earned unaccounted income and had made the payments of Rs. 18 lakhs out of that unaccounted income. Even after a paper was found from the premises of the appellant an impounded during the course of survey, the appellan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ncome-Tax (Appeals) ought to have considered the fact that the penalty order was not passed within time allowed u/s 275 of the I. T. Act. 7.1 The assessee filed a petition requesting for admission of the additional ground, which is as under: "The initiation of proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, is not valid as the AO did not strike off the inappropriate portion of the notice. The AO ought to have struck off the inappropriate portion and indicated to the appellant the applicable portion in the notice." 8. As the said additional ground is a legal ground, wherein, the facts are on record and facts do not require fresh investigation, following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Pow....