TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 1201
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee being an authorized agent of M/s Hind Syntex and Hind Spinners, Dewas for the sale of yarn manufactured by them and receives commission on these sales. For the A.Y. 1998-99, this assessee filed his Return of Income [ROI] on 30.11.1998 declaring total income of Rs. 76,980/-. The assessment was completed on 30.3.2001 at a total income of Rs. 1,00,31,240/- This assessment order suffered multiple appeals. Against the quantum addition the appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A) but this order had been subjected to revision u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short] and the ld. CIT has set aside the assessment order dated 30.3.2001. That is why the appellate commissioner also dismissed t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the absence of any assistance/explanation of the assessee, the A.O. has found that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income in respect of the following items of income: a. Commission Rs. 19,93,474/- b. Hire charges [1658971 + 1,60,000] Rs. 18,18,971/- c. Excess claim of depreciation Rs. 4,50,075/- d. Unsecured loans Rs. 5,19,521/- e. Security deposits Rs. 24,92,238/- f. Fictitious liabilities Rs. 3,88,480/- g. Income from GCJ Securities P Ltd. Rs. 20,70,004/- Total concealed income Rs. 21,02,450/- Rs. 97,65,209/- Accordingly, he has imposed a penalty of Rs. 29,02,743/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. 4. Against the penalty order dated NIL, the assessee went in ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a chart, have survived: S. No. Particulars Amt Relief by the ld. CIT(A) Confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) Relief by ITAT Set aside by ITAT 1. Commission/brokerage to sub brokers 1993474 1993474 33985 2. Hire charges 1818971 1818971 3. Insurance charges 197199 197199 4. Repair and maintenance 19280 11000 8280 5. Petrol & Telephone expenses 20000 3560 16440 6. Travelling expenses 5000 5000 7. Disallowance of depreciation 450000 450000 450000 8. Income from GCJ Securities P. Ltd 2070000 2070000 9. Fictitious liabilities 388488 388488 &n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Appellate authorities. He further argued that the assessee did not raise this issue before the ld. CIT(A), so he cannot take this legal issue in this second appeal. He stated that it will not make any difference if the approval is not taken from the JCIT and taken from any other authority. He also refuted the reliance by the ld. A.R. on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Garg reported in 334 ITR 240 wherein the Tribunal has struck down the case because the warrant of authorization in that search case had not been issued by the designated authority but still the warrant was not quashed. 9. After considering the rival submissions regarding this legal issue which touches the jurisdiction of the A.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mission is stated to have been obtained u/s 274(2)(a) of this Act vide letter No. 497 dated 28.06.2007. Now the question arises as to when no requisite and 'mandatory' prior approval is obtained, what will happen to the penalty order? In section 274 of the Act, the term used is 'shall' and it makes obtaining of prior approval as mandatory. In Pawan Kumar Garg's case [supra] the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has clearly held that the definition of 'Joint Director' was introduced in the section 2[28D] for the first time and therefore, the Legislature has made a distinction between a 'Joint Director' and an 'Additional Director'. We can definitely draw support from the above decision. Any term or office or authority mentioned in the Act has got....