9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 838X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f accounts were produced before the Assessing Officer (Predecessor) however, lateron the data was lost from the computer of the assessee in the circumstances the assessee was prevented from sufficient cause for producing before the Assessing Officer. 2. That the Id. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty under section 271A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the assessee failed to produce the books of accounts before the Assessing Officer whereas as per the assessee there was a reasonable cause in terms of section 273B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for not producing the same before the Assessing Officer. 3. That the assessee prays for any consequential relief and/or legal claim arising out of this appeal before the disposal of the same. 4. That the assessee prays for any addition, deletion, amendment and modification in the grounds of appeal before the disposal of the same in the interest of substantial justice to the assessee. 4. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.1223/Chd/2012 read as under: 1. That the Id. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty under section 271 (l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for an addition of ₹ 13,5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocument evidencing presentation of books of account before the Assessing Officer. The penalty levied under section 271A of the Act was upheld by the CIT (Appeals). 7. The assessee is in appeal against the order of the CIT (Appeals). Shri Deepak Aggarwal appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri N.K.Saini put in appearance on behalf of the Revenue and put-forward their contentions. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The perusal of the assessment order passed under section 143 (3) of the Act placed on record reflects that the Assessing Officer had issued detailed questionnaire and notices for hearing to the assessee. The assessee during the year under consideration in addition to the salary income had also declared income from business of running the boutique at ₹ 1,61,680/-. As the assessee failed to produce the books of account before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings, 50% of the expenses were disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. Before the CIT (Appeals) in the quantum appeal, the contention of the assessee was that the complete books of account were produced before the predecessor Assessing Officer but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer had made the following additions while completing assessment under section 143(3) of the Act: a) Addition on account of difference in salary ₹ 13,500/- b) Addition on account of disallowance of expenditure ₹ 25,000/- c) Addition on account of denial of exemption u/s 54F of the Act ₹ 8,52,979/- 11. In view of the above said additions made in the hands of the assessee, which in turn were confirmed by the CIT (Appeals) and the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed by the Tribunal, the Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act at ₹ 1,81,861/- equivalent to 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. The CIT (Appeals) confirmed the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on all the three accounts. 12. The assessee is in appeal against the said levy of penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act. The learned A.R. for the assessee pointed out that the addition in the salary account was on account of difference in amount of accrued salary and amount of salary received by the assessee. The assessee had declared the amount received as her income, whereas the Assessing Officer had adopted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce to ₹ 25,000/- merely because the assessee has not been able to substantiate its claim of expenditure, the said claim could not be said to be false and there was no warrant in the levy of penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in relation to disallowance of expenditure of ₹ 25,000/-. 16. The third addition made in the hands of the assessee was on account of disallowance of exemption claimed under section 54 of the Act. The assessee in the return of income had claimed deduction under section 54F of the Act which during the course of assessment proceedings was revised to the claim of deduction under section 54 of the Act. The assessee had claimed to have invested ₹ 8,32,000/- in the purchase of plot on 2.6.2005 and in respect of investment in construction of the property at ₹ 24,30,000/-. The Assessing Officer allowed the investment made in plot at ₹ 8,23,000/- as allowable under section 54 of the Act. However, the exemption claimed in respect of expenditure incurred on construction was denied by the Assessing Officer as the assessee had failed to furnish any eviden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
