ITA No. 380/Ahd/2015, (Assessment Year: 2011-2012). Case: Setu Developers Vs Dy. CIT. Delhi DRAT ITAT Cases
| Case Number | ITA No. 380/Ahd/2015, (Assessment Year: 2011-2012) |
| Counsel | For Appellant: P.M. Mehta and G.M. Thakor, AR and For Respondentst: Subhas Bains, CIT-DR |
| Judges | N.S. Saini, Member (A) and S.S. Godara, Member (J) |
| Issue | Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 132, 132(4), 139, 143(3), 153(a), 153A, 271(1), 271(1)(c), 271AAA |
| Judgement Date | May 11, 2015 |
| Court | Delhi DRAT ITAT Cases |
Order:
N.S. Saini, Member (A), (ITAT Ahmedabad 'A' Bench)
-
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) XII, Ahmedabad, dated 9.1.2015. The sole ground of appeal taken is that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, of Rs. 2,41,02,000/- made by the AO.
-
The brief facts of the case are that a search action was carried out u/s. 132 of Income-tax Act, 1961 on 6.1.2011 in the case of Savalia Group, residential premise of Shri Maganbhai H. Bhakhar situated 86/1, H. Colony, Nehrunagar Char Rasta, Ambawadi. In the statement recorded on 6.1.2011 & 7.1.2011 under section 132(4) of the Act, Shri Maganbhai H. Bhakhar admitted an amount of Rs. 7,80,00,000/- as undisclosed income. The disclosure in the hands of assessee firm was made in relation to ''on money'' received from various parties for development of projects of ''Copper Stone'' near Shridhar Bunglow, Thaltej. The scheme contained 108 flats and assessee had disclosed Rs. 7.80 crores as ''on money'' from 108 members. The same was disclosed by the assessee in the return of income and was assessed to tax by the AO vide order passed under section 143(3) on 22.01.2013.
-
During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee was required to provide the details of ''on money'' received from each member for booking 108 flats. The assessee failed to provide this information and, therefore, penalty proceedings were initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for submitting inaccurate particulars of income. In the penalty order the AO observed that the core issue in the case of the assessee was what constitutes concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. The legal issue involved here is whether particulars of income can be said to have been concealed even if quantum of returned income is same as assessed income. The AO observed that the assessee firm was found to have concealed the particulars of income declared in the return of income by not providing true and correct facts. He observed that it is clear from the facts of the assessee's case that the assessee has neither furnished nor explained the manner in which undisclosed income is earned and did not provide the Department with true and correct particulars of income and, therefore, he was satisfied that the assessee has concealed particulars of its income and furnished inaccurate particulars of its income and was liable for penalty u/s. 271(1)(c)...
To continue reading
Request your trial