9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 838X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of either (a) rejection of assessee’s claim of whether expenditure was capital or revenue in nature (cited case at S. No. (1)) or (b) were cases where estimation of income was made and for both of which the Hon'ble courts had held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not leviable. In our view, the case on hand stands on a different footing from the cited cases (supra), as there is neither rejection of the assessee claim of revenue expenditure as being capital in nature nor estimation of income in some cases after rejection of books of account; and therefore, would not come to the rescue of the assessee. In this factual and legal matrix of the case, as discussed above, we uphold the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) in confirming that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed simultaneously in the order of assessment by issue of notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act dated 22.12.2010. 2.2 In the course of penalty proceedings, before the AO, the assessee s submission that the gold jewellery of ₹ 10,70,315/- and diamonds of ₹ 6,14,371/- were received in inheritance and as gifts on various occasions, was found untenable by the AO as he found that the assessee s claim was not established by corroborative material evidences like, gift deeds and Wealth Tax Returns of the donees and the creditworthiness of the party from whom jewellery was inherited. In that view of the matter, the AO vide order dated 24.06.2011 levied penalty of ₹ 5,20,568/- on the assessee @ 100% of tax sought to be evade ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order passed U/s 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961. The aforesaid Penalty is upheld to the extent of ₹ 59,768/- in view of the jewellery to such extent was seized at the time of search and the same being added in the assessment U/s 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961. It is therefore prayed that penalty levied should be deleted. 2. Your appellant craves to add, alter, or amend any of the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing of appeal. 3.2 The learned A.R. for the assessee was heard in support of the grounds raised (supra) seeking cancellation of the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of unexplained jewellery of ₹ 1,93,424/- seized in the course of search under section 132 of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return of income. The same was brought to tax in the assessee s hands and subsequently penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied thereon. The learned D.R. submitted that on appeal, the learned CIT(A) cancelled the penalty levied upon gold jewellery amounting to ₹ 10,70,315/- and sustained the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of ₹ 1,93,424/- out of ₹ 6,14,371/- worth of diamonds. 3.3.2 The learned D.R. contends that the judicial pronouncements cited by the assessee (supra) are distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the case and therefore would not come to the rescue of the assessee. In the case at Sr. No. 1, i.e. Dresser-Rand India (P.) Ltd. (supra) the issue was the partial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 02.2009, the assessee was found to be in possession of jewellery amounting to ₹ 24,38,172/-, out of which jewellery of ₹ 16,84,686/- (comprising gold jewellery of ₹ 10,70,315/- plus diamonds of ₹ 6,14,371/-) was found to be unexplained, but was subsequently not offered to tax by the assessee. The same was brought to tax in the assessee s hands and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were simultaneously initiated. It appears that no appeal was preferred by the assessee against the order of assessment for A.Y. 2002-03. 3.4.2 In penalty proceedings, the AO proceeded to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the jewellery of ₹ 16,84,686/- which was brought to tax in the assessee s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e estimation of income was made and for both of which the Hon'ble courts had held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not leviable. In our view, the case on hand stands on a different footing from the cited cases (supra), as there is neither rejection of the assessee claim of revenue expenditure as being capital in nature nor estimation of income in some cases after rejection of books of account; and therefore, would not come to the rescue of the assessee. In this factual and legal matrix of the case, as discussed above, we uphold the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) in confirming that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income is to be levied in respect of the unexplained diamonds of ₹ 1,93,424/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
