Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 799 - ITAT JAIPURPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) imposed on the legal heir - genuineness of purchase - assessee could not produce original evidences at the time of quantum proceedings but produced during the penalty proceedings - Held that:- It is undisputed fact that the assessee expired on November 22, 2010. In this case, the assessment was completed on December 17, 2008, and penalty was imposed on March 1, 2011. It means that after the death of the assessee. The assessee claimed the expenditure of ₹ 6,09,534 in the profit and loss account, which has been disallowed by the Assessing Officer. The same has been confirmed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, vide order dated November 26, 2010. The assessee claimed that this marble was fixed in the construction made in Kamla Modi Market which was purchased on February 3, 2006. Copy of the bill placed before us on page 9 of the paper book, which is copy of the bill of lading for purchase of marble at ₹ 4,11,608 on which registration number of the seller and the name of the transporter has been given. The evidence placed for remaining expenses also perused and we find that the assessee could not produce these original evidences at the time of quantum proceedings but produced during the penalty proceedings before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) but he has not taken any cognizance. He simply treated them as non-genuine. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has coterminous power with the Assessing Officer as penalty proceedings are distinct from the assessment order, he could have sent these evidences to the Assessing Officer for verification. The inquiry made by the Inspector in December, 2008, to verify the marble fixed in the constructed area. The case law referred by the assessee particularly the decision of the Mumbai Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Bench in the case of Bhagwansingh Shriramsingh L/H Dinesh Bhagwan Singh v. ITO [2006 (5) TMI 270 - ITAT MUMBAI] is squarely applicable as any sum referred in section 159(1) does not include the penalty proceedings on the legal representative under section 159(2) of the Act. Therefore, penalty imposed on the legal heir is not justified. - Decided in favour of assessee
|