9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 115J of Rs. 4,04,28,085/-. The original assessment was completed on 27.3.2001. Subsequently, a reassessment under Section 143(3) read with 147 was completed on 27.3.2006. In the reassessment, certain additions were made. 4. As against 6 items of additions made in the reassessment, the assessee filed an appeal. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), by an order dated 30.3.2007, confirmed the order of reassessment in respect of 3 items namely (a) unaccounted lease syndication charges of Rs. 1,66,00,000/- (b) unaccounted lease rent received from Wescare (India) Ltd., of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- and (c) unaccounted lease syndication amount of DLWL Company of Rs. 1,20,00,000/-. 5. As against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the assessee filed an appeal in ITA No.1757/Mds/2010. The Tribunal dismissed both the appeals by a common order dated 9.9.2011. Aggrieved by the dismissal of their appeal, the Revenue has come up with the above appeal under Section 260-A of the Act. 10. Today, the Revenue has no quarrel with regard to the reduction of penalty from 150% to 125% in respect of two items of addition. The present appeal is confined only to the deletion of penalty in entirety in respect of one item. Therefore, the question of law arising for our consideration is: As to whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal were right in deleting the penalty proceedings in entirety, under Section 271(1)(c), when the assessee was not able to 4 substan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of such income. There are two ingredients to Clause (c). The first is concealment of the particulars of income. The second is the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. 14. What is concealment, is also explained to some extent in Explanation (1). Under this Explanation, there are three contingencies under the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income of a person shall be deemed to represent a concealed income. These contingencies are: (i) failure to offer explanation (ii) offering explanation that is found to be false and (iii) offering of an explanation, which could not be substantiated, coupled with the failure to prove that the explanation is bona fide and that all the facts relating to the same and mater ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) reads as follows:- "6.4.1 Based on the facts submitted by the appellant, I am of the considered opinion that only because the appellant has not substantiated the relationship of DLWL with the M/s. Arun Pipes Ltd. or because no confirmation was filed by M/s.Arun Pipes Ltd. regarding payment by DLWL on its behalf, no penalty could be levied. There is no dispute regarding receipt of Rs. 1.2 Cr. from DLWL. There is also no dispute that Rs. 1.2 Cr. was due from M/s. Arun Pipes Ltd. Hence, the imposition of penalty is on certain assumption ignoring the receipt of money by cheque which has been confirmed by the issuer of the said cheque. In such a situation, the addition may be sustained due to insufficient evidence. But since assessment and p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
