9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Addition of Rs. 1,00,250 due to lack of confirmation evidence in assessment proceedings. Analysis: The appeal challenged the addition of Rs. 1,00,250 to the returned income for the assessment year 1992-93. The Assessing Officer added this amount as the assessee could not produce confirmations for cash credits of Rs. 1,00,250 out of total deposits of Rs. 1,82,000. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition, stating that the evidence was not produced despite repeated opportunities during assessment proceedings. The assessee, a partnership firm involved in government contracts, offered the amount for taxation to conclude the assessment peacefully. The ld. counsel argued that the surrender was made with the understanding that no penalty proceedings would be initiated, citing the doctrine of promissory estoppel. However, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The counsel relied on legal precedents to support the contention that the agreement to the addition did not preclude penalty imposition. Regarding the legal aspects, the counsel referenced rule 46A(1) of the Income-tax Rules, emphasizing that the assessee's inability to produce evidence should not prevent penalty proceedings. The counsel's argument highlighted that the Assessing Officer's actions were within legal boundaries despite the agreement on the addition. The judgment referred to relevant case laws to establish that the agreement to the addition did not exempt the assessee from penalty proceedings under the law. The judgment emphasized that the Assessing Officer had the authority to initiate penalty proceedings despite the assessee's agreement to the addition. Moreover, the judgment cited legal precedents to support the conclusion that the appeal was not admissible due to the evidence not being presented during assessment proceedings. The court held that the assessee was not prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence earlier. Therefore, the fresh evidence presented before the ld. CIT(A) was rightly rejected. The judgment concluded that no appeal lay against the agreed addition, as per the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the addition of Rs. 1,00,250 to the assessee's income for the assessment year 1992-93.
|
