Case Law Details
Case Name : PR. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Shri Neeraj Jindal (Delhi High Court)
Related Assessment Year :
Courts :
All High Courts Delhi High Court
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
When the A.O. has accepted the revised return filed by the assessee under Section 153A, no occasion arises to refer to the previous return filed under Section 139 of the Act. For all purposes, including for the purpose of levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the return that has to be looked at is the one filed under Section 153A. In fact, the second proviso to Section 153A(1) provides that “assessment or reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this sub-section pending on the date of initiation of th...
This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.
One Comment
Cancel reply
Sir, my Assessee’s case was reopened of 148, though he has been carrying his business since last 33 Years under consideration as a matter of fact. The AO determined the cash generated of Rs.11,33,084 whereas the ‘A’ has deposited Rs. 13,40,000 in the bank. hence, cash shortage arrived at Rs. 2,06,916 as per assessment order passed by AO due to the shortage of cash the concealment penalty u/s 271 (1) (C) initiated and notice issued for reply.
Sir, my query is that weather the penalty proceeding u/s 271 (1) (C) under the situation supera, attracted or not . whereas the ‘A’ has explained that he deposited Rs. 13,40,000 from income during the year and accumulation of capital from earlier years as he is doing business from last 33 year. Sir, enlighten me with the case of law.