9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artnership firm M/s. Vishnu Priya Finance. During the survey operations conducted in the case of Sri G.Sanjeeva Reddy, partner of M/s.S.V.Constructions, it was found that the assessee had entered into a sale agreement, along with three other members, for purchase of land against which part payment of Rs. 4.90 crores was admitted to have been made by the date of the survey. Out of the assessee's admitted share of Rs. 1,22,50,000/-, Rs. 1,17,50,000/- was treated as unexplained investment and added to the returned income. Further, a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- was also brought to tax, treating it as undisclosed additional investment, in the land by the assessee since receipt of Rs. 1.00 crore, found during the survey, was not admitted by the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ors; the creditors had substantiated with respect to advancing sums; it was only the Assessing Officer who disbelieved that they had no creditworthiness, and this could not be treated as concealment. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that two creditors, one among whom was shown to be a Software Engineer, and another was shown to have agricultural income, were neither called nor examined by the Assessing Officer to judge their creditworthiness; additions made in quantum proceedings were different from penal proceedings, and the angle of concealment was not fully established on the issue of investments which were treated as unexplained to attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act; and no penalty was leviable on Rs. 1,17,5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... because the explanation furnished by the assesee was considered unsatisfactory and unreasonable, it would not justify invocation of Clause (a) to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act; and there was no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax can be levied only in cases where the Assessing Officer, or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), are satisfied that any person has concealed the particulars of his income, or has furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The penalty proceedings initiated against the respondent-assessee was on the ground that he had concealed the particulars of his income. Both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
