9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 662X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... undry creditors were paid by bearer cheques and in majority of the cases amount was withdrawn by one Shri Jaganan Thorat who is stated to be a close relative of one of the partners of the assessee firm. Since, the assessee was not able to substantiate the claim, the amount of ₹ 50,02,425/- was offered for tax.In the light of above facts, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in confirming disallowance. - Decided against assessee. Levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - Held that:- In the instant case, admittedly explanation has been offered. Whether it is bonafide or not that has to be seen. The assessee has placed on record the agreements and other documents to show sale transactions of land. The assessee has also placed on record bills to show the expenditure on development of land. Some of the bills/invoices have been rejected by treating them as not genuine by Revenue, however, the persons who have issued the bills have not denied the issuance of bills. The Assessing Officer has rejected the bills on certain presumptions. Thus, in our view, there is no concealment of any information by the assessee. Thus it is not a fit case for l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing Officer levied penalty of ₹ 17,00,324/- u/s. 271(1)(c) vide order dated 27-05-2011. Against the order levying penalty the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 12-02-2013 confirmed the levy of penalty. Now, the assessee has come in second appeal impugning the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirming the disallowance, as well as, levy of penalty. ITA No. 993/PN/2013 3. First we will take up the quantum appeal of the assessee. 4. Shri Prayag Jha appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that, the assessee had purchased a piece of land on 15-05-2007 for ₹ 2,25,00,000/- and sold the same vide sale deed dated 24-10-2007 for ₹ 3,17,00,000/-. The assessee had incurred expenditure to the tune of ₹ 71,53,380/- for the development of aforesaid land. The assessee had produced all the bills/vouchers in respect of development expenditure incurred. However, the Assessing Officer rejected the same by treating them as bogus. In order to buy piece the assessee offered an amount of ₹ 50,02,425/- for tax. 5. On the other ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntly. It was pointed out that the land was sold on 24-10-2007, whereas, the bills were dated between 25-10-2007 and 31-10-2007. The paper book filed before us contains deed of conveyance dated 24-10-2007 vide which the land was sold. The description of property sold is given in Schedule to conveyance deed, which is as under: THE SCHEDULE ABOVE REFERRED TO: FIRSTLY: ALL THAT piece and parcel of Non agricultural land lying, being and situated at Village Karla within the limits of the Registration District of Pune and Registration Sub District of Maval and within the local limits of Zilla parishad Pune, Maval Taluka Panchayat Samiti and within the limits of Group Gram Panchyat Karla bearing Gat No. 73 and admeasuring 99 Ares or thereabouts assessed at ₹ 2653:47p and bounded as follows, i.e. On or towards the East by : Gat No. 70 72 On or towards the West by : Gat No. 74 On or towards the South by : Indrayani River On or towards the North by : Gat No. 76 SECONDLY: ALL THAT piece and parcel of Non agricultural land lying, being and situate at Village Karla within the limits of the Registration District of Pune an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2011-12 through cheques drawn on, The Thane Janata Sahakari Bank, Nigadi Branch. The enquiry made by the Assessing Officer revealed that most of the outstanding sundry creditors were paid by bearer cheques and in majority of the cases amount was withdrawn by one Shri Jaganan Thorat who is stated to be a close relative of one of the partners of the assessee firm. Since, the assessee was not able to substantiate the claim, the amount of ₹ 50,02,425/- was offered for tax. 8. In the light of above facts, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in confirming disallowance. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed being devoid of merit. ITA No. 992/PN/2013 9. The assessee has filed appeal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) amounting to ₹ 17,00,324/-. It is a well settled law that where disallowances/additions are made, levy of penalty is not automatic. The quantum and penalty proceedings are two separate and independent and stand on different footing. Merits in quantum appeal and in penalty proceedings have to be appreciated with different app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
