TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 784
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Act") dt.15/03/2016 relevant to the Assessment Year 2011-2012. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. 1. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the protective order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act by the Ld.A.O. who has computed the income at Rs. 56,01,6107/- as against income declared by the assessee at Rs. 1,610/-. 2. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs. 56,00,000/- by treating the investment of Rs. 25,00,000/- in shares of Pradip Overseas Ltd and Rs. 31,00,000/- in shares of Pradip Enterprise Ltd as unexplained investment under section 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me to total income of the assessee. The AO further initiated penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) on the same for filing inaccurate particular of income and concealment of income. 3.1 During the penalty proceedings the assessee submitted that he has not concealed or furnished inaccurate particular of income as he has voluntary offered additional income without any finding from the AO in this regard. Therefore no penalty should be warranted on voluntary admission. The assessee in support of his contention relied on various judgment of Supreme Court and High Courts which is available on record. 4. However the AO held that the assessee has offered additional income by filing revised computation though he had ample time to file revised ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inquiry conducted on him with respect to additional income, no question was raised by investigation team also. As such, there was no any information available with the AO in this regard. The income was voluntary offered. 6. However the learned CIT (A) disagreed with the submission of the assessee and held that the additional income was only offered after search conducted at Dhanjimama Group and incrimination material related to assessee was found. Accordingly the learned CiT(A) confirmed the action of the AO. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. The learned AR before us filed a paper book running from pages 1 to 45 and submitted as follows: I. AO has levied penalty without mentio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rred from making any claim without filing revised return which is with reference to claim of deduction whereas in appellant's case additional income is offered. * Ld. CIT (A) dismisses appeal relying on judgment of Mak Data P. Ltd. (SC) on mistaken belief that appellant's facts are identical to Apex Court judgment. Ld.CIT (A) erred in not appreciating that no specific query with respect to any incriminating material pertaining to the appellant found at searched premises was raised by AO. Appellant is not exigible to levy of penalty on suo moto declaration of additional income to buy peace and to avoid lengthy litigations as held in 1. Suresh Chand Mittal 251 ITR 9 (SC) 2. Dilip N Shroff 291 ITR 519 (SC) 3. T. Ashok Pai 292....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s DhanjiMama Group which was conducted dated 30th July 2012. As such, the assessee was issued a notice under section 131(1A) of the Act in connection with the search proceedings at M/s DhanjiMama Group wherein the undisclosed income of Rs. 1 crores approximately was accepted for the entire family of the assessee. A sum of Rs. 76,46,698/- out of the total undisclosed income of Rs. 1 crores approximately pertained to the assessee for the year under consideration. 10.2 The main thrusts of the revenue are twofold for holding that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income as detailed under: i. The assessee disclosed the impugned income as a result of search at M/s Dhanjimama Group wherein the assessee was called upon as witness und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncome which was not offered in the income tax return. We are holding so based on the order of the authorities below as this fact/information was not emanating from the respective orders. 10.5 It is also pertinent to note that there was questionnaire issued by the AO having jurisdiction over the assessee under section 142(1) of the Act which were filed before us. But, in none of the questionnaire the question regarding the undisclosed income admitted by the assessee in the statement furnished under section 131 of the Act was made. Accordingly, we are not impressed with the argument of the learned DR that there was a question raised about the reasons which has affected the income of the assessee. In our view, such question raised by the AO i....