9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 607X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not a fit case for penalty under section 271(1)(c) - appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. - ITA No.14/Agra/2013 - - - Dated:- 10-5-2013 - Shri Bhavnesh Saini And Shri A. L. Gehlot,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Pankaj Gargh, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri K. K. Mishra, Jr. D.R. ORDER Per A. L. Gehlot, Accountant Member:- This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 16.10.2012 passed by the ld. CIT(A), Muzaffarnagar for the Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. The ground raised in the appeal is in respect of levy of penalty of Rs.1,75,000/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter). 3. The brief facts of the case are that originally the A.O. made addition of two i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 271(1)(c) of the Act on both the additions of Rs.1,79,878/- and Rs.3,50,000/- on the ground that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 5. The CIT(A) directed the A.O. to restrict the penalty amount to the extent of Rs.1,75,000/-. The relevant finding of the CIT(A) is reproduced as under :- (Page no.8) "On the basis of all the above case laws, which include the decision of the jurisdictional High Court also, I hold that in a case source of fresh capital introduced held to be unexplained/bogus, burden is on the assessee to prove that there was no concealment of income or of true particulars. In my firm view, the angle of concealment is more than established, and, therefore, the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the other hand, relied upon the order of CIT(A). 8. We have heard the ld. ld. Representatives of the parties and records perused. Admitted facts of the case are that the A.O. made addition of Rs.3,50,000/-. The assessee furnished necessary explanation but the I.T.A.T. has found reasonable explanation to the extent of Rs.1,75,000/-. In other words, the I.T.A.T. sustained the addition on the basis of estimation. In the case of estimation, it cannot be said that the assessee has concealed particulars or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Also, it cannot be said that the explanation furnished by the assessee was found false. Under the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that it is not a fit case for penalty under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
