9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 526X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law and the wife of the brother in law of the assessee, does not automatically mean that penalty u/s. 158BFA(2) is leviable – thus, there is no need to interfere in the findings of the CIT(A) – Decided against Assessee. - IT(SS)A No. 681/Ahd/2010 - - - Dated:- 7-3-2014 - Sri D. K. Tyagi And Shri Anil Chaturvedi,JJ. For the Petitioner : Sri J. P. Jhangid, Sr.D.R. For the Respondent : Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, A.R. ORDER Per : D. K. Tyagi, Judicial Member:- This is the assessee's appeal against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-XVI Ahmedabad dated 22-06-2010. 2. Assessee has taken following ground of appeal:- 1. The Authorities Below have erred in law and fact by the levying the penalty of Rs. 44,322/- u/s. 158BFA(2) of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tated asunder:- Qst 5: Apart from household expenses money of Rs. 25,00/-, we have recovered Rs. 90,000/- from your cupboard. Whose is it and where has it come from ? Ans.5 : This amount is combined cash of my wife and my daughter in law. How much is each one's cash, I don't know. Even they do not know. This amount is savings accumulated from time to time. Qst. 6: Today how much gold ornaments and whom do they belong to and how much ornaments are in your bank locker and whom do they belong to ? Ans. 6: There ore ornaments of about 20 tolas gold in my house and in my bank locker No. 317 in State Bank of India, about 25 tola ornaments are there out of which 10 tolas ore of my mother in law, about 5 to 7 tolas are of my ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that right from the date of search till the date of assessment proceedings, the appellant has stated that the jewellery belongs to his mother in law and wife of the brother in law. No inaccurate particulars were filed by the appellant. Merely that the addition of Rs. 72,422/- was confirmed by the CIT(A) and ITAT by rejecting the explanation of the assesses that the jewellery belong to mother in law and the wife of the brother in law of the assessee, does not automatically mean that penalty u/s. 158BFA(2) is leviable in this case. 4. Ld. CIT(A) however confirmed the penalty imposed by AO. 5. Further aggrieved now the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. At the time of hearing learned counsel of the assessee reiterated the same submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t considered the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Becharbhai P. Parmar(supra), therefore with due respect the same is not being followed. As far as another case of Jaipur Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Shanti Bai Yadav is concerned, the penalty was deleted in that case as addition in that case was not based on any evidence found during the search. Since in this case, addition was made by AO on the basis of jewellery found during the search, this decision of Jaipur Bench is also not applicable to the facts of this case. In view of this, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of Ld. CIT(A) and the same is hereby upheld. 8. In the result, assessee's appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in open ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
