9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ENT :- PER : N Kumar These appeals are preferred challenging the order passed by the authorities levying the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity). 2. The assessee is an individual, engaged in the business of money lending at Haleyangady, Dakshina Kannada District under the name and style of M/s.Sri Durga Credits and Investments. The assessee filed his return of income for the assessment years 2000 - 01 to 2006 - 07, declaring his income. Subsequently, a survey was conducted at the business premises of the assessee under Section 133 (A) of the Act on 30.08.2006. The authorities found duplicate sets of exercise books, which were seized. Based on the findings o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liable to pay any tax, he paid the same. The assessing officer on consideration of the said reply was of the view that not only the defense set up by the assessee is not true but it is false. Aggreived by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the lower appellate authority. The lower appellate authority dismissed the appeal by confirming the order of the assessing authority. The assessee again preferred an appeal challenging the order of the lower appellate authority before the Tribunal. The Tribunal on reappreciation of the entire material on record, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by these three orders, the present appeal is filed. 3. Learned Counsel for the assessee assailing the impugned orders contend, 'though in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, full addresses, the date of deposit, amount of deposit, rate of interest payable etc. The assessee did not file these details. To a query, the assessee answered by saying that it is true that he has claimed sundry creditors for Rs.21,96,415/- as his income for the year 2000-01. He has no objection for disallowing the interest claim of Rs.4,63,000/- made on these deposits in the computation of income filed by him. On consideration of this reply, the Three Facts Finding Authorities have concurrently held that not only explanation offered by the assessee is unacceptable but the said explanation is false and therefore, a case for imposing penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act is made out. This being purely a question of fact, when Fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
