TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 784
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 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 facts of the case in- confirming interest charged U/s. 234 B and 234 C of the Act. 4. The appellant craves for leave to add, amend or alter all or any of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of this appeal. 2. The only issued raised by the assessee vide ground No. 1 to 3 is that the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 22,94,009/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the income offered in the revised computation has been accepted. 3. The fact in the brief is that the assessee is an individual working as property dealer/ broker and investor in property. The assessee for the year under consideration declared income of Rs. 12,12,400/- only. The return of the assessee selected for scrutiny and the notice u/s 143(2) was issued upo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come before investigating authority. The income was neither computed nor alleged by the investigating authority. Though he failed to file revise return due non availability of complete detail as he was completely depend upon Dhanjimama group. After receiving the details he computed the income and offered at assessment stage even before any finding from the AO. The assessee further submitted that the AO's contention that if search would have not been conducted the income should have escaped is also not correct. As there was not any 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. Dilip N Shroff 291 ITR 519 (SC) 3. T. Ashok Pai 292 ITR 11(SC) 4. Manjunath Cotton 359 ITR 565 (Kar) (Distinguishing Mak Data) 8. On the other hand, the learned DR submitted that the assessee has disclosed the impugned income on account of the search proceedings conducted at M/s Dhanjimama Group. Had there not been a search, the income of the assessee would have escaped from the assessment. Thus, the assessee concealed the particulars of income. 9. Similarly, there was a direct question raised by the AO during the assessment proceedings about the reasons which has affected the income. The learned DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 10. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The issue in the present case relates to the fact whether the assessee has concealed particulars of income for Rs. 76,46,698/- which was disclosed by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. Admittedly, the assessee has not disclosed his income amounting to Rs. 76,46,698/- in the return of income but the same was offered to tax by way of filing the revised computation of incom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....communication by the Investigation office of the Income Tax Baroda who recorded the statement under section 131 of the Act of the assessee in connection with the search proceedings at M/s DhanjiMama Group about the fact that the assessee has disclosed such income 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 is a general question and has nothing to do with the income of the assessee admitted by him in the statement furnished under section 131 of the Act. Accordingly we can safely assume that t....