It is undisputed fact that during the course of search, no incriminating documents were found and seized. The assessee surrendered the additional income under section 132(4) at Rs. 15 lacs and requested not to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The AO imposed the penalty by invoking the Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which has been confirmed by ld. CIT (A) by considering the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC). But for imposing the penalty under Explanation 5A on the basis of statement recorded during the course of search, it is necessary to be found incriminating documents and is to be considered at the time of assessment framed under section 153A of the Act
Before us the moot question which is required to be decided is whether the income earned by the assessee on account of share is required to be treated as business income or required to be treated as short term capital gain. After the matter was heard on 11.02.2016, the CBDT came out with the Circular No. 6/2016 dated 29.02.2016 in the following manner. In view of the circular, we have clearly noticed that the issue raised in this appeal stands fully covered by the Circular issued by the CBDT. Since the assessee has treated the securities as investment and not as stock in trade in all the years, therefore, in view of the CBDT Circular, the revenue is not permitted to take a contrary view in the present year and claimed that the security is stock in trade and, therefore, the profit/gain caused to the assessee be treated as business income. In our view, there is no merit in the contention of the revenue and is deserves to be dismissed in view of the circular.
A perusal of the CBDT instruction reveals that even Board is aware of such laconic disclosures and expects its officers to rely on incriminating evidence. Thus CBDT also is not in favor of search assessments being based only on such disclosures; it wants them to be based on incriminating material. In view the facts, circumstances, CBDT instruction and various case laws relied on by the assessee we are unable to uphold the additions solely on the basis of disclosure which doesn’t meet the eye and have been held by us to involuntary
It shall be noteworthy that till 28-4-15 these professionals had no objection with the bench as no grievance whatsoever was raised. The casual way of adjournment against final chance shows their casual attitude of taking the judicial process for granted. The emphatic demand that – if other matters were adjourned, our appeal should also have been adjourned; amounts to dictating the terms to the court. It reflects their inaptitude in failing to appreciate the vital fact that thus adjournment was granted as a final chance which was agreed by them. “They keep ‘holier than thou attitude’; if I commit wrong or disobey there is nothing wrong in it but if the bench doesn’t conduct itself in my desired way then bench is by default wrong and I raise scandalous tirade against bench.” To show their might they shoot frivolous complaints, file litany of motivated RTIs proclaiming to be RTI activist. These brazenly scandalous acts have been unleashed by them with swagger of impunity and recklessness without realizing that when the appeal is pending orders such threats construe contempt of court. …..
Perhaps they are enraged on their own professional inaptitude which became visible in open court proceedings, it requires self introspection and hard preparation of appeal; instead they have misdirected their self fury on the bench indiscriminately. Their own professional infirmities can be improved from their side by mending their unprofessional attitude. They cannot score brownie points by telling the world that they can get desired orders by threatening to harm judicial officers and their delinquent conduct is justified.
The affidavit and cavalier conduct of Shri Kaushal Agarwal, C.A. raises serious questions on his professional competence and work ethics in giving such an affidavit which hides more than it explains. The burden is on the assessee to reasonably explain day to day delay and establish that there existed reasonable and sufficient cause in delaying the filing of appeals for about 1 year. If the proper dates or occasions are not mentioned with proper facts then the delay cannot be condoned. The law helps diligent and not the indolent as well as the axiomatic delay defeats equity. In our considered view that the condonation petitions filed by the assessee and material available on the record, fail to invoke any confidence, fail to explain reasonable and sufficient cause for condonation of long delay of 347 days in filing these appeals
It is trite law that in penalty proceedings, the assessee needs to be made aware of the exact nature of charge which is leveled against him. This is so because the assessee is suppose to give a reply on the specific allegation and not on the assumptive allegation
The department had gathered the information through survey and search seizure in above parties and they categorically admitted that they have provided entries and not doing any purchase and sale of gems and jewellery. Even then Assessing Officer asked to …
Anuj Kumar Varshney vs. ITO (ITAT Jaipur) Read More »
Applying the above test, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court opined that a mere levy of fees is neither reflective of business aptitude nor indicative of profit oriented intent. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that when propelling motive is not …
Jaipur Development Authority vs. CIT (ITAT Jaipur) Read More »