1. Pawan Kumar Gupta Vs. ACIT, ITA Nos. 4652, 4653,4654, 4655/DEL/2011, Date of Order: 25.07.2014, ITAT - Delhi
No
penalty can be imposed u/s 271(1)(c), in case where assessment
completed at income returned u/s 153A. Once return of income u/s 153A is
accepted by AO, it can neither be a case of concealment of income nor
furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income.
Tribunal
has come to the conclusion that for the purpose of imposition of
penalty u/s 271(1)(c) as a result of search assessments made u /s 153A,
original return of income filed u/s 139 cannot be considered. It was
held that concealment of income has to be seen with reference to
additional income brought to tax over and above the income returned by
the assesee in response to notice issued u/s 153A and therefore once
return of income u/s 153A is accepted by AO, it can neither be a case of
concealment of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such
income.
(Please click here for judgment)
2. Assistant
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Bahubali Dyes Limited, ITA No.
4980/Del/2013, Date of Order: 25.07.2014, ITAT - Delhi
In the
present matter the assessee had received `2.50 crores from the six
companies in the form of share capital and share premium and the same is
added by AO as unexplained cash credit, it was held
a. Summons issued by the Assessing Officer to the shareholder companies were duly served upon them.
b. The
shareholder companies responded to the Assessing Officer by affirming
the investment made by them in the shares of the assessee company and
also produced the necessary evidence in support of such investment.
c. The assessee has produced copy of acknowledgement of filing of income tax returns by all the companies.
d. The
assessee produced copy of their bank accounts in which amount paid to
the assessee is debited, their balance sheet which shows substantial
share capital.and in the schedule forming part of the balance sheet, the
investment made in the shares of the assessee company was duly
disclosed.
Since
none of the above mentioned evidence was rebutted by the Revenue and as
such addition of Rs.2.50 Crore deleted by the CIT (A) is upheld.
(Please click here for judgment)