TAHER AFSAR ALI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 24(1)(2), MUMBAI
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed
ITA 7577/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2016AY 2006-07
Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7577/Mum/2013 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Taher Afsar Ali, बनधम/ Income Tax Officer 24(1(2), 5 Nand Kishore Indl Estate, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Vs. Off Mahakali Caves, Rdm Bandra-Kurla Complex, Andheri(E), Bandra (E), Mumbai. Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aabpa0014H
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)
…of income which is added or disallowed in the assessment. 5 7577/Mum/2013 12) The facts in our case are that the assessee has disclosed the facts. 13) The assessee relies on the following judgments in support of his explanation. a) CIT v Dholie Tea Co. Ltd. 231 ITR 65 (Cal) it was held that the revenue has to prove that the assessee had knowingly concealed his income. b) CIT v Rahuljee and Co. 250 ITR 225 (Del) it was held that if the explanation given by the assessee was bonafide, penalty u/s. 271(1)(2) will not be attracted. 14) Further the assessee did not willingly shown deemed dividend in return of income…