Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Shri Uday C Tamhankar Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Appeal Number : Income tax (Appeal) no. 711 to 715 of 2011, 857 to 862 of 2011, 3579 to 3583 of 2013
Date of Judgement/Order : 11/09/2015
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

Mumbai ITAT held In the case of Shri Uday C Tamhankar that the submission of assessee that the assessment years up to 2006-07 falls in the category of concluded assessments, i.e., assessments of those years were not pending on the date of initiation of search is a valid submission. Hence, in our view, the assessing officer could not have made these additions for AY 2004-05 to 2006-07 in the absence of any incriminating materials. Additions made by the AO, after accepting the additional disclosure of Rs.20.00 lakhs, would result in double assessment, since it is stated that the assessee has not capitalised the above said amount in his books of accounts.

The assessee has duly disclosed the income voluntarily offered by him in the returns of income filed in response to the notices issued u/s 153A of the Act. During the course of penalty proceedings also, the assessee has offered the explanation to that effect and the said explanation was not found to be false. The revenue has noticed/seized all the materials available with the assessee and no incriminating material supporting the additional disclosure was found. Under these set of facts, we are of the view the tax authorities are not justified in presuming that the additional disclosure voluntarily made by the assessee shall constitute concealed income warranting penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

Facts of the Case

The assessee is a dentist and carries on his profession from different places and also through different hospital names. He was subjected to search and seizure operations on 17-01-2008. On the very same day, some of his concerns were also surveyed u/s 133A of the Act. During the course of search operations, cash balance of Rs.1,13,57,110/- was found as against the book balance of Rs.9,10,548/-. In the statement recorded from him u/s 132(4) of the Act, he admitted the excess cash balance of Rs.1,04,68,512/- as his unaccounted income. The assessee agreed to offer a sum of Rs.1,25,00,000/- (including excess cash balance) as his income. The AO completed the assessment after making some additions on account of disallowance of expenses on account of car & telephone expenses, addition u/s 69C and relating to estimated professional income. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) for concealment of income and u/s 271AAA for additional offer of income by the assessee.

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