2022 (6) TMI 1007

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....['the Act' for short]. 2. Facts of the case are that assessee filed original return of income for assessment year 2016-17 on 5.8.2016 disclosing total income of Rs.8,26,030/-. The same was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. There was search in the case of assessee u/s 132 of the Act on 1.2.2017 at the business premises of M/s. Badagubettu Credit Co-operative Society Limited, Udupi. The present assessee is the General Manager of this Society. During the course of search action, certain documents were seized from his chamber at the premises of Badagubettu Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. At the same time, residence of the assessee was searched u/s 132 of the Act on 1.2.2017 and statements were recorded from him u/s 132(4) o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....op. Society Ltd. I hold that, the unexplained investment brought to tax under section 69A in the preceding assessment year 2015-16 amounting to Rs.1,30,00,000/-, I have deleted the said additions made by my order in ITA No.100/CIT(A)-2/18-19 of even date. Accordingly, interest paid on such loans during the assessment year under question should be allowed as deduction. Hence, I direct the AO to consider the above claim of the appellant as disclosed in the revised return of income filed and accordingly delete the additions made amounting to Rs.23,83,069/-. The first ground of appeal is allowed." 3. Now the assessee is in appeal before us with regard to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The contention of the Ld. A.R. is that the pen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ly pronounced in the open court on 25.3.2021 after conclusion of the hearing in the presence of representatives of both sides. Now this order in writing is signed today on 30.3.2021." 4. In view of the above order of the Tribunal, she prayed that penalty may be deleted. 5. Ld. D.R. not put any serious objection. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, the Ld. CIT(A) already deleted the quantum addition made by the AO in this case at Rs.23,83,069/- vide order dated 2.4.2019 for assessment year 2016-17 in ITA No.101/CIT(A)-2/18-19. However, the AO levied penalty on account of difference between the income offered in original return of income and final assessed income. The fina....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d then, even if the assessee declared such income in the return of income filed after search, he will be deemed to have concealment/furnished inaccurate particular of income. It has to be noted that not only the appellant had not disclosed this income in his original return of income but even in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act, he had given evasive reply regarding the actual investment made in the hotel project. Therefore, at no stretch of imagination, the disclosure could be termed as voluntary. It is also to be noted that before us, she had only made a plea that the Ld. CIT(A) has already deleted the quantum addition and no penalty could be levied. However, she has not put any argument with regard to the above finding of the ....