TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 104
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are stated in brief. The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business as developer, builder and contractor. Search and seizure operation was conducted u/s. 132 of the Act in the Ravi Shetty Group cases on 26.7.2007. The Revenue also carried out survey operation u/s. 133A of the Act at the business premises of the assessee. During the course of survey action, loose papers were found and impounded. Those documents revealed that the assessee has received a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs in aggregate on 29.11.2005 and on 41.1.2006 by way of cash on sale of a flat in the building named "Sai Radha Paradise", i.e., during the year relevant to assessment year 2006-07. Documents also revealed that the assessee has received payments by way of cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be evaded. The assessee could not succeed in appeals filed before the learned CIT(A) for both the years and hence the assessee has filed these appeals before us. 6. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee is following mercantile system of accounting and both the building projects were completed subsequently in AY 2008-09. Accordingly he submitted that the discrepancy, if any, in not disclosing the receipts would have bearing only in AY 2008-09 and not in AY 2006-07 and 2007-08. He submitted that it is also established proposition that the entire unaccounted receipt, if any, cannot be taxed, but only the income element therein should be taxed. However, the partner of the assessee, without appreciating these legal positions, has agreed to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... limb mentioned in sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act under which the penalty proceedings have been initiated. Accordingly he submitted that the penalty orders are liable to be quashed on this legal point also. 8. On the contrary, the ld D.R submitted that the assessee has not accounted the amounts received by way of cash and the same is evidenced by the loose sheets found during the course of search. The assessee has come forward to admit the additional income after the search/survey operations and hence the Ld CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the penalty levied in both the years as the offer of additional income was not voluntary, but the same was made after its detection by the revenue. 9. We have heard rival contentions and perused the record. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come additionally offered by the assessee did not accrue during the two years under consideration. Further the offer was made by the partner of the assessee firm during the course of search proceedings conducted in his hands, while the assessee was subjected to only survey operations. We notice that the assessing officer has accepted the additional income offered by the assessee only on the basis of offer made in the statement taken from the partner of the firm u/s 132(4) of the Act, i.e., the assessing officer did not examine the aspect whether the alleged unaccounted receipts are taxable in the two years under consideration. Further he did not also examine the question as to whether the entire amount can be taken as the income of the asse....