9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... foresaid amount is coming up from the preceding assessment year and was shown as opening balance in the account of the assessee on 01.04.2004. Therefore, not a transaction related to the assessment year under appeal even if the addition is maintained on quantum as was not pressed before CIT(A). Thus, the item which did not pertain to assessment year under appeal and was merely a opening balance in the assessment year under appeal which was coming up from the earlier year, cannot be considered for any purposes for fastening liability upon assessee. The books of account of assessee for preceding assessment year have not been doubted by the Revenue authorities. For opening balance no adverse view could be taken in the assessment year under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see had shown liability of Rs.1,20,850/- in the name of sundry creditor M/s Shri Ram Udyog. The account of assessee in their books was obtained and placed on record which shows the balance of Rs.26,217/-. The assessee was directed to explain the difference as to why the addition of Rs.94,633/- may not be added to the income of the assessee. The assessee filed reconciliation before A.O. which reveals that there is a difference of Rs.94,758/- due to the opening balance as on 01.04.2004 which has not been explained by the assessee. The A.O. accordingly added this amount to the income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on account of liability in the name of sundry creditor M/s Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... closing balance in the balance sheet of the assessee ending as on 31.03.2004. Copy of the balance sheet of earlier year is also filed in support of the contention. He has submitted that for the balance coming up from the earlier year cannot be considered for the purpose of addition even though the assessee did not press this addition before learned CIT(A), therefore on the same reasoning penalty cannot be levied against the assessee. The claim of the assessee was not found false and the assessee explained this addition to the satisfaction of the authorities below, therefore, levy of penalty is unjustified. He has relied upon the following decisions :- i) Price waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 348 ITR 306 (SC) ii) CIT Vs. Reliance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng is independent and different in nature, we cannot ignore this important fact at the time of considering the penalty matter. Thus, the item which did not pertain to assessment year under appeal and was merely a opening balance in the assessment year under appeal which was coming up from the earlier year, cannot be considered for any purposes for fastening liability upon assessee. The books of account of assessee for preceding assessment year have not been doubted by the Revenue authorities before us. For opening balance no adverse view could be taken against assessee in the assessment year under appeal. The assessee has not failed to offer any explanation and the explanation of the assessee was not found to be false. The assessee has made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
