9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 243X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee offered an explanation with regard to cash credit which was not found to be false by the Assessing Officer or the learned CIT(A)- The assessee also substantiated the explanation by producing the creditors who admitted having advanced the money to the assessee - Decided against Revenue. - ITA No. 2396/Del/2012 - - - Dated:- 3-1-2014 - Shri G. D. Agrawal And Shri I. C. Sudhir,JJ. For the Appellant : Smt. Renuka Jain Gupta, Sr. DR. For the Respondent : Shri Vijay Kumar Gupta, Advocate. ORDER Per G. D. Agrawal, VP. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of learned CIT(A), Faridabad dated 17th February, 2012 for the AY 2004-05. 2. The only ground raised by the Revenue is against the cancell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the above, she submitted that the Assessing Officer had rightly levied the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) and the learned CIT(A), without properly appreciating the facts of the case, cancelled the penalty. The order of learned CIT(A) should be reversed and the penalty should be affirmed. 6. The learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, stated that the creditors have furnished the affidavit affirming the deposit of the money with the assessee. They also appeared before the Assessing Officer and further affirmed the money advanced by them. All the creditors have agricultural income and the evidence of the landholding and the sale of agricultural produce was duly produced before the Assessing Officer. That even the ITAT in its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f assessee, the assessee cannot be penalized u/s 271(1)(c) merely because an addition has been made under the deeming provisions of section 68 of the Act. As regards disallowances out of various expenses, there has been a bonafide difference of opinion between the AO and the appellant as to the allowability or otherwise of such expenses and nothing to conclude that the appellant furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. Hence, no penalty can be levied on addition/other disallowances made by the AO. Keeping in view the above factual and legal position, the penalty of Rs.3,51,406/- levied by the AO is not sustainable and consequently, the penalty order passed by the AO is cancelled. All the grounds of appeal taken up by the appellant ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
