9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 852X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dingly, the same is set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee - I.T.A. No. 551/HYD/2016 - - - Dated:- 5-10-2016 - SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The For Assessee : Shri P.V.S.S. Prasad, AR For The Revenue : Shri K.J. Rao, DR ORDER PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. : This is an appeal by assessee against the order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Hyderabad dated 29-02-2016, confirming the penalty of ₹ 1,77,473/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act [Act]. 2. Briefly stated facts as mentioned in the order of CIT(A) are as under: 1.0 The appellant Smt K. Hemalatha is an individual. A search operation was conducted on the appellant's so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O, the assessee went on appeal against the order of the Ld AO before the CIT(A). 1.3 The Learned CIT(A) in his order gave relief for an amount of ₹ 3,53,000/- out of addition of ₹ 11,94,000/- and confirmed the addition for the balance of amount of ₹ 8,40,500/-. 2. Aggrieved by the confirmation of addition of ₹ 8,40,500/- the assessee has come on appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal. 3. The Hon'ble Tribunal vide its order dt 16-11-2011 gave further relief of ₹ 2,10,000/- and confirmed the balance addition of ₹ 6,30,500/-. 4. As part of the addition of ₹ 6,30,500/- as mentioned above was confirmed by the appellate authority the assessee received a notice u/s 274 read with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT. Act of ₹ 1,77,473/- for the A.Y. 2005-06. The brief facts of the case are while completing the assessment for the A.Y. 2005-06 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the I.T. Act on 24.12.2009, the Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹ 11,94,000/- as unexplained credit, as the assessee failed to adduce any evidence in support of her contentions that this amount of ₹ 11,94,000/- represents her accumulated savings. On appeal, the CIT (Appeals) has given relief to the extent of ₹ 3,53,500/- and confirmed the remaining addition of ₹ 8,40,500/-. On further appeal, the Hon'ble ITAT gave further relief of ₹ 2,10,000 and confirmed the balance of ₹ 6,30,500/-. Therefore, pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee is very much hit by the explanation 1(A) to sec. 271 (1)(C) of the IT Act which clearly stipulates that when a person fails to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be false, then such income shall be deemed to be concealed income. Therefore, as the assessee has failed to substantiate her claim with respect to the amount of ₹ 6,30,500/-, the same being confirmed by the Hon'ble ITAT, the assessee can be said to have concealed the particulars of the income to that extent. Moreover, the facts of the case laws as relied upon by the assessee are different from the facts of the instant case and hence cannot come to her rescue. Further, I place reliance on the following case laws: (i) Loknath Cho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts of the case. 6. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders including the appeals in quantum proceedings. There is no dispute that assessee has shown opening balance of ₹ 22,94,430/-, which is the value of various assets acquired much earlier. These include Fixed Assets of ₹ 19,52,827/- and balance Current Assets. Even though, AO made addition of entire amount, assessee got substantial relief and only ₹ 6,30,000/- confirmed by ITAT in appeal. However, the fact that these assets were acquired in earlier years were not noticed. Whatever may be the reason for confirming part of the amount in assessment, the same does not automatically lead of levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). Assessee can quest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
