Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Naranbhai S.Patel. Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
Appeal Number : ITA NO.1272 & 1273/Ahd/2011 M.A. No.144 & 145/Ahd/2014
Date of Judgement/Order : 19/06/2015
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Brief Facts of the Case

During assessment, the AO found 6 undisclosed bank accounts while scrutinizing the transactions in an undisclosed bank account as the said bank account had transfer entries to other 5 bank accounts.

In addition to assessing the undisclosed income to tax as the assesse was unable to disclose the source of deposit, the AO also levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) based on the peak balance in all the 6 bank accounts amounting to 1,33,400/- for Assessment Year 1991-92 and Rs 3,88,700/- for Assessment Year 1992- 93.

The assesse claimed that the AO had made an estimate of the peak balance for levying the penalty and penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on estimate basis. The assesse also submitted that only 1 undisclosed bank account was found by AO and other 5 bank accounts were voluntary disclosed by assesse however while levying penalty the AO considered the peak balances of all the 6 bank accounts.

Question of Law

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

0 Comments

  1. ketan says:

    Dear Sir,

    Govt. made it mandatory for all taxpayer if IT that to show all banks details.

    Pls let me know what if not showing all the banks details.

    BR,

    Ketan

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031