TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (11) TMI 1108
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g to the assessment year 2013-14. 2. The brief facts of the case, the assessee is an individual engaged in share trading and commission business. There was a search action u/s. 132 of the Act in the case of the assessee and accordingly notice u/s. 153A of the Act was issued on 21-07-2015. However, the assessee did not file return of income in response to the above notice. After repeated notices, the assessee filed its return of income on 07-11-2016 declaring nil income. Assessment was completed after pursuing various seized materials and brokerage/commission income amounting to Rs. 54,38, 284/- as the unaccounted income of the assessee and demanded tax thereon. 3. Aggrieved against the addition, the assessee filed an appeal before Com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd finally levying the penalty for alleged concealment of income is incorrect and illegal and the same be held so now. 3. The Order passed by the learned CIT(A) upholding the penalty levied is bad in law and contrary to the provisions of law and facts. It is submitted that the same be held so now. 4. Your appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or to amend all or any of the grounds before the final hearing." 5. The ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Sunil Talati, appearing for the assessee submitted before us penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) cannot be levied against estimation of income and relying upon the following case laws:- (i) CIT vs. Valimkbhai H. Patel (2006) 280 ITR 0487 (ii) CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n income of the assessee. The above addition are based on seized materials and not disclosed by the assessee in his return of income, therefore the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) for concealment of income is legally valid in law. The concurrent findings arrived by the lower authorities does not require any interference and the case laws relied upon by the counsel for the assessee are clearly distinguishable, therefore the assessee's appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the material available on record including the case laws cited by ld. counsel for the assessee. It is undisputed fact that the assessee filed its original return declaring income of Rs. 7,32,561/- which was set off aga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant. Moreover, the appellant disclosed unaccounted income earned as commission on these transactions to the extent of Rs. 35 lakh during recording statement u/s 131 of the Act in post search enquiries. The appellant could not prove the contents of these papers otherwise with better evidences. With this finding, commission income of the appellant for the year under consideration is determined as under:- Sr. No. Details of seized paper Bill/Commission amount Income of the appellant 1 Page No. 2, 3 & 5 of A/1 29,38,284/- (commission) 29,38,384/- (commission) 2 Page No. 6 of A/1 25,00,000 Covered by above addition, it is receipt out of above. Total Income 29,38,384/- 7.1 Thus, in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere was no compliance with provisions of section 139(5) and, consequently, revised return was to be treated as non-est - Authorities below thus passed a penalty order under section 271(1)(c)- Whether since there was nothing on record showing that in original return assessee was unaware about gross concealment of income, impugned penalty order passed by authorities below was to be upheld - Held, yes [In favour of revenue]." 7.3 Similarly Jurisdictional High Court judgement in the case of Bharatkumar G. Rajani Vs. DCIT (2013) 40 taxman.com 344 wherein it is held as follows: "After assessment of assessee had been completed, Investigation Wing detected money laundering racket, in which assessee was also found involved - In response ....