V ANANDMULL JAIN INDL Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
S. Kannan, Accountant Member -
(1.) GIVING rise, as they do, to certain common issues, these appeals by the assessees were heard together and are disposed of by a common order.
(2.) The aforesaid assessees are members of one and the same group doing business in money-lending, vehicle financing, sale of fertilizers and hulling of paddy. This group was subjected to search and seizure operations on 31-7-1986. After the search the group came forward with an aggregate disclosure of Rs. 49.99 lakhs, with the rider that the said amount may be spread over the members of the group in a certain fashion. It is a matter of record that the quantum matter was settled on the said lines.
To give effect to the said settlement, the assessees of the group, it is common ground, filed revised returns of income, which were all accepted pursuant to the said settlement. In the course of the reassessment proceedings, penalty proceedings were initiated under Section 271(l)(c) and Section 273 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. And the impugned penalties were levied by the Assessing Officer, going on the basis of the additional income disclosed by the assessees in the revised returns and in pursuance of the aforesaid settlement.
(3.) THEREUPON, the assessees moved the Commissioner (Appeals) contending that these were essentially cases of voluntary surrender of additional income and that therefore were not fit cases for levying penalties under Section 271(l)(e)/273 of the Act. The said contention did not find favour with the Commissioner (Appeals), who declined to interfere in the matter and dismissed the appeals filed by the assessees. It is in these circumstances that the assessees are now before us.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.