9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e his explanation of having spent the impugned expenditure limit for his employer company for the purpose of the business and also the Revenue has failed to refer to the employer's books so as to negate the same by holding that the very sums have not been claimed as expenditure. We reiterate: that this is a penalty case liable to be strictly interpreted. This factual position leads us to a conclusion that the authorities below have wrongly imposed the impugned penalty u/s.271 (1)(c) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee - IT(ss) 574, 575, 576, 577/Ahd/2012 - - - Dated:- 3-5-2016 - Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Accountant Member And Shri S. S. Godara, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, AR For the Revenue : Ms ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g total income at ₹ 2,02,304/-. Thereafter, assessment was framed u/s.153C rws 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30/09/2008 and total income was determined at ₹ 4,49,304/- after making addition of ₹ 2,47,000/- on account of unaccounted receipts as per seized documents. On the addition of ₹ 2,47,000/- made on account of unaccounted salary, bonus, etc., the AO vide order dated 30/03/2011 held that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income thereby concealed the particulars of income and thereby liable for penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and levied penalty of ₹ 41,400/-. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A), who vide order dated 23/10/2012, in appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e circumstances of the Appellant s case, the learned CIT(Appeals) has grossly erred in dismissing Ground No.1 of the Appellant s appeal challenging the validity of the Penalty Order impugned before hi on the ground that it had been passed in total disregard to the fact that the Appellant s application for granting immunity from penalty u/s.273AA was still pending before the Hon ble Commissioner of Income Tax. 2. Without prejudice to the foregoing, in law and on facts as well as in the circumstances of the case of the Applicant, the learned CIT(Appeals) has grossly erred in sustaining penalty of ₹ 41,400/- levied under Section 271(1)(c) vide order impugned before him when he ought to have deleted the same. 3. Without prejud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parties. The issue in the present case is with respect to levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on the additions made while framing the assessment u/s.153C of the Act. We find that the Coordinate Bench of Tribunal the case of Alkesh Ptel in IT(SS)A Nos.579 580/Ahd/12 for AYs 2002-03 2003-04 vide No.29/01/2016 on identical facts and on similar addition made arising out of the same search, had deleted the penalty by observing as under:- 6. We have heard rival contentions. Relevant facts set out hereinabove are not repeated for the sake of brevity. There is no dispute that assessee as well as his employer have been stating that this undisclosed income is in fact an expenditure limit allowed to be incurred to the respective employee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us to a conclusion that the authorities below have wrongly imposed the impugned penalty of ₹ 11,010/- u/s.271 (1)(c) of the Act. The same stands deleted. IT(SS)A 579/Ahd/2012 is accepted. 5.1. Before us, Revenue has not been pointed out any difference on the facts of the present case and the case of Alkesh Patel nor has placed any contrary material on record. Taking a consistent view and placing reliance on the decision of the Coordinate Bench and for similar reasons, we allow the appeal of the assessee in IT(SS)A No.574/Ahd/2012 for AY 2002-03. 6. Now, we take up the remaining assessee s appeals in IT(ss)A Nos.575, 576 577/Ahd/2012 for AYs 2003-04, 2004-05 2006-07 respectively. 7. Ld.representatives of the parties ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
