Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Mrs Sarita Manjeet Singh Chopra Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
Appeal Number : ITA No 1562/PN/2013
Date of Judgement/Order : 30/10/2015
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Brief of the case:

ITAT Pune held in Mrs Sarita Manjeet Singh Chopra Vs ITO that if the assesse had disclosed its unaccounted income filing return u/s 153A only after it was caught in search by the income tax department then that disclosed income through return would be considered as undisclosed income and penalty u/s 271(1)(C) would be levied on the same because as per sec 271(1)(c) if the amount (cash/bullion etc) had been caught by the income tax department during search and that belong to that previous year of which due date had been expired and that particular income was not disclosed by the assesse in its return of income of that particular year then the assesse would be considered as assesse in default and penalty would be levied even though assesse had disclosed the that particular undisclosed income afterwards.

Moreover as the assesse had furnished inaccurate particulars related with the exemption u/s 54 so furnishing of inaccurate particulars also led to the penalty u/s 271(1)(c).

Facts of the case:

Search and seizure action was carried out against the assessee on 09.12.2009. The assessee was carrying cash of Rs.1,60,76,800/-, while travelling from Pune to Delhi by air. The Investigation Wing of Pune searched the assessee under section 132 of the Act on 09.12.2009. Subsequently, her residence was also searched and cash of Rs.1,60,00,000/- was seized during the course of search proceedings. The statement of assessee was recorded and she stated that she had sold ancestral propoperty at Delhi to one Mr. Sunil Nandra for Rs.3,40,00,000/-. However, the agreement was made for Rs.1,70,00,000/- only and the balance amount was accepted in cash. The assessee also submitted that she was having 50% share in the impugned property and balance 50% share was of her sister Mrs. Tripta Kaur. She further submitted that she had received entire cash element and her sister Mrs. Tripta Kaur was not concerned with the cash at all. The assessee, in response to notice under section 153A of the Act furnished return of income declaring total income of Rs.2,04,91,850/- on 13.09.2010. The assesse offered 50% share of the agreement value i.e. Rs.85,00,000/- and 100% share of cash element i.e. Rs.1,70,00,000/- in her hands and computed the capital gains accordingly.

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.

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