2018 (2) TMI 979

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s.454/Jodh/2015 & 455/Jodh/2015 whereby the appeals preferred by the revenue against the orders dated 03.07.2015 & 06.07.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) have been dismissed. Both these appeals are being decided by this common order as both the appeals arise out of a common order passed by the ITAT. The only difference being of assessment years i.e. 2006-07 in appeal No.26/2018 and 2007-2008 in Appeal No.28/2018. Brief facts necessary to be narrated for adjudication of these appeals are that the respondent- assessee is a property dealer who is engaged in the business of Real Estate. The assessee is doing the business in the name of M/s Meenakshi Property Dealers and also earned income from the partnership firm a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er held that since the disclosure was not voluntary and bonafide, besides the case of the assessee is not covered by Clause 2 of explanation 5 to section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, therefore, the penalty levied is just and proper and the same is in accordance with law. The respondent- assessee aggrieved of this order dated 17.06.2009 passed by the assessing officer preferred two separate appeals Nos.144/2009-10 & 145/2009-10 before learned Commissioner of Income Tax. In appeals, learned Commissioner of Income Tax vide its orders dated 03.07.2015 and 06.07.2015 while deleting the amount of penalty allowed the appeals in the light of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Gebilal Kanhaialal HUF, reported in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Tax Act, 1961 have not been followed in the present case in its true letter and spirit. He submits that disclosure of the income was done by the respondent- assessee after search and seizure was made at his residence and business premise, therefore, disclosure is not bonafide and the assessee has not disclosed his true and correct income in the returns filed by him under section 139 (1) of the Income Tax Act. Had there been no search and seizure on the premise of the assessee, the income which is disclosed after the notice under section 153 (A) of the Income Tax Act would have remained concealed and the revenue would have been put to loss of tax on the same. Therefore, learned counsel prays that substantial question of law arises in the p....