Full News
ITAT held CIT had no jurisdiction in the case
ITAT held CIT had no jurisdiction in the case
After assessment was completed u/s 143(3) (of Income Tax Act, 1961), assessee in a survey admitted additional income. In reasssessment proceedings, assessee filed revised return. AO made addition and levied penalty. CIT(A) allowed assessee’s appeal. CIT(A) issued a notice u/s 251 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) as AO failed to levy penalty on undisclosed income revealed during survey. ITAT following High Court of Karnataka in CIT vs Manjunath Cotton, held CIT had no jurisdiction in the case.-500655
1. Assessee had furnished the return of income declaring total income of Rs.82,842.
2. The said return of income was processed u/s 143(1) (of Income Tax Act, 1961).
3. A survey u/s 133A (of Income Tax Act, 1961) was carried out at the premises of the assessee and declaration of additional income of Rs.1.75 crores was made by the assessee.
4. AO issued notice u/s 148 (of Income Tax Act, 1961).
5. Assessee filed revised return declaring total income of Rs.1,25,39,650 and agricultural income of Rs.3,26,988.
6. AO noted that assessee had credited a sum of Rs.1.42 crores to its P&L Account being the declaration account which was accepted.
7. AO restricted agricultural income to the income shown in the original return of income and added the difference.
8. AO made an addition of Rs.23,01,567 as unexplained expenditure from undisclosed sources and levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) (of Income Tax Act, 1961).
9. CIT(A) allowed assessee’s appeal.
10. CIT(A) issued a notice u/s 251 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) as AO failed to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) on the undisclosed income of Rs.1,24,56,842, which had been revealed during the survey.
11. AO levied penalty of Rs.39,23,895.
On appeal, the ITAT held as under:
12. The facts and issues before the us are identical to the facts and issues before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in CIT & Anr. Vs . Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra) and following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court, we hold that there is no merit in the jurisdiction exercised by the CIT(A) for initiating and levying penalty for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income under section 271(1)(c) (of Income Tax Act, 1961).
Case Reference - Shri Ajit Ramchandra Jadhav Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax.
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH "A", PUNE
BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM
ITA No. 2104/PN/2013
(Assessment Year : 2003-04)
×
