9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1091X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... address and other particulars were before them by way of confirmation statement. For the above stated reasons, we are of the considered view that the penalty levied by the learned Assessing Officer is not maintainable - Decided in favour of assessee - I .T.A.No.2596/Mds/2015 - - - Dated:- 22-4-2016 - SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant by : Mr. T.Vasudevan, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr. P.Radhakrishnan, JCIT ORDER Per A. Mohan Alankamony, AM:- This appeal is filed by the assessee aggrieved by the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax-Appeals (Central)-I, Chennai, dated 19.08.2014 in ITA No.3/2013-14 passed under section 271(1)(c) r.w. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 271(1)(c) of the Act and subsequently levied minimum penalty on the addition of ₹ 11,60,000/- (735,000/- + 4,25,000) being 100% tax sought to be evaded which works to ₹ 3,90,456, because the assessee could not produce satisfactory explanation with documentary evidence regarding the source of loan. 4. On appeal, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of the learned Assessing Officer by observing as under:- 7. I have perused the penalty order, grounds of appeal and the contentions of the AR in this regard. It is seen from the facts of the case that the appellant filed her return of income for the A.Y 2005-06 admitting an income of ₹ 20,80,063/-. subsequently, the AO completed the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... articulars of such income, he may, in addition to the tax, if any payable, direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty a sum which shall not be less than, but which shall not exceed three times, the amount of tax sought to be evaded by reason of concealment of particulars of his income or the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. 7.2. The appellant has not substantiated with cogent evidence with regard to the sources for the above said loans. The appellant has failed to offer satisfactory explanation with any supporting evidences. Therefore, the AO has made an addition of ₹ 11,60,000/- (Rs.7,35,000 + ₹ 4,25,000). In view of the above, the appellant's contentions are not accepted as the AO had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounds raised in this regard are hereby dismissed. 5. The learned Authorized Representative submitted before us that the assessee had furnished the confirmation letters from the concerned creditors before the Revenue and those creditors appeared before the learned Assessing Officer and confirmed that they have advanced cash to the assessee. However, without further verifying the statements given by the creditors of the assessee, the learned Assessing Officer had levied penalty on the assessee which is erroneous. It was therefore pleaded that the penalty levied by the learned Assessing Officer which was further confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may be deleted. The learned Departmental Representative on the ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Delhi)). The appellant submits that the verdict of the Commissioner of Income tax(Appeals) who allowed partial relief to the appellant has been accepted by the appellant not because the advances were not genuine, but because the appellant wonted to give a quietus to the issue by avoiding further litigation. The appellant has also therefore paid the tax due. It is submitted that even though the additions have been confirmed, that cannot be a reason for levying penalty because the evidence required for levy of penalty is different from that at the assessment stage (CIT vs Mata Prasad [278 ITR 354 (AII]. It is accordingly submitted that the Commissioner of Income tax may be pleased to delete penalty levied. 6. Coming to the addition of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enuine but for levy of penalty the Revenue should have gone one step further by at least verifying the confirmation statement furnished by the assessee and by examining the creditors. If the learned Assessing Officer is not convinced with the appearance and statements given by the creditors of the assessee, then he ought to have rejected the creditors by a reasoned speaking order which in the present case, the learned Assessing Officer failed to do so. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has also not looked into these aspects. Considering these facts that the Revenue has made additions and sustained the same only for the reason that the assessee could not convince the Revenue with respect to her claim though she had produced co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
