2017 (3) TMI 27

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for concealment particulars of income but levies penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars the penalty order could not be sustained. Respectfully following the above judgments of the Hon’ble courts, we decide the effective ground of appeal in favour of the assessee.
Shri Rajendra, A. M. and Shri Pawan Singh, J. M. Revenue by : Ms. Anu Krishna Aggarwal & Shri Alok Johri-DR Assessee by : Shri Rakesh Joshi ORDER Per Rajendra A. M. Challenging the order dtd. 22. 01. 2016 of the CIT(A)-9, Mumbai, the assessee has filed the present appeal. Assessee, an individual, filed his return of income on 14/03/2001, declaring income of ₹ 10. 89 lakhs. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment u/s. 143(3)of the Act on 24 . 12. 201 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... business, that he had obtained loan from SRM. After considering the submission of the assessee, the AO held that SRM did not have the capacity to lend values amount of ₹ 6 lakhs, that assessee could not establish the creditworthiness and source of the disputed amount. He levied a penalty of ₹ 2. 02 lakhs u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority(FAA). Before him, it was argued that the AO had ignored the financial statement which clearly showed and opening capital of ₹ 12. 22 lakhs of SRM, that all the transactions were done through banking channels, that assessee had not evaded taxes, that the loan was still a bearing in the boo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ormed decision about not challenging the quantum addition. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that AO had made addition of ₹ 6 lakhs invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act with regard to unsecured loan obtained from SRM, that he had initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) for filing inaccurate particulars of income, that he levied a penalty for concealing the income, that the FAA confirmed the order of the AO. We find that the issue of living penalty-where penalty is initiated for concealing particulars of income/furnishing inaccurate particulars and penalty is not levied on account of same default-has been dealt by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X