TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 854
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....income of the appellant on account of alleged excess cash found during the course of survey action ignoring the fact that the cash found was pan of the cash receipts from the Solitaire project duly offered to tax by the appellant company. IB. The Id CIT (Appeals) erred in sustaining the action of the Id AO resulting in double addition of Rs. 1,94,232/- once as income and again on account of application thereof in the form of an asset. 1C. The Id CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,94,232/- , made by the Ld. AO on the sole basis of the bonafide error on the part of the director of the appellant company in clarifying a particular issue during the course of survey action, which otherwise is not justified b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded on 04/10/2006, from Shri Kamlesh Shah Director of the company where he had admitted excess cash of Rs. 1,94,232/- and also agreed to offer an additional income. 3. The case has been selected for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO called upon the assessee to explain as to why an addition should be made in respect of excess cash found during the course of survey for Rs. 1,94,232/-. In response, the assessee has filed a letter dated 02/11/2009 and submitted that it has declared additional income of Rs. 24,50,000/- from Solitaire Project. In respect of income, in the form of excess cash found, the same is telescoped out of additional income offered for Solitaire Project. Therefore, separate addition is not call....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich is still pending for approval. As this being a project approval as IT. Park entitled to Income-tax benefit as provided under subsection 4(iii} of section 80IA of the IT. Act, 1961. No income have been recognized from this project in the current year' 6.2 From the above note it is clear that the project in which the assessee has claimed deduction u/s.80IA is not fully approved and certain issues have been pending with the Board. In light of the above facts, during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee was asked to furnish the relevant details in respect of claim of deduction u/s.80IA with necessary supporting evidences. It was also show caused to the assesses, in absence of any proper approval from the governmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has no evidence to prove that its project is covered under the relevant scheme and hence it failed to submit the details as asked for on the date of hearing. Further, more after giving ample time the assessee failed to submit any details to substantiate its claim of deduction. In absence of any proper explanation, the deduction claimed u/s 80IA of Rs. 2,34,07,151/- is disallowed to the assessee. Accordingly, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are being separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealing the taxable income. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), but could not succeed, because the CIT(A) for detailed reasons recorded in his appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cal finding in the light of statement of Shri Kamlesh Shah, Director of the company that the assessee was having excess cash during the course of survey for which no explanation has been offered. We further noted that although the assessee claims to have taken the benefit of telescoping towards income offered from Solitaire Project, but while recording statement during the course of survey it was the case of the assessee that excess cash found during the course of survey represents unaccounted income. We, therefore are of the considered view that there is no error in the findings of fact recorded by the lower authorities and hence, we agree with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and reject ground taken by the assessee. In so far as rejection of....