9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and office building - Held that:- The assessee during the course of assessment proceedings agreed to the addition of sum of ₹ 50 lakhs as part of his computation of income and its non adjustment against the current business loss. The offer made by the assessee was in the spirit of reaching quietus and to end the litigation which had arisen in the instant case. The assessee had infact claimed the set off of that income against the business loss arisen for the year under consideration and merely because the same has not been set off, it cannot be said to be concealment of income. The view of the assessee have not been accepted by the Assessing Officer, but the same does not justify levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts in observing that the appellant has tried to inflate expenses to nullify the stock declaration. The I-T authorities ought to have substantiated this conjecture, especially on the background, that the evidences of increase in expenses were produced before the AO, scrutinized by him and no objections were raised thereto. 4. The appellant craves leave to add / modify / delete / amend all / any of the grounds of appeal. 4. The Revenue in ITA No.2281/PUN/2014 has raised the following grounds of appeal : 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in restricting the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act to ₹ 15,00,000/- in respect of the adjustment of deemed in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oss of ₹ 40,29,891/-, income from house property of ₹ 3,55,069/- and ₹ 50 lakhs declared as additional income on account of unexplained investment in furniture and office building/factory sheds etc. 6. The assessee was asked to explain the reason for heavy losses alleged to have been incurred during the year, substantially in view of the fact that assessee had declared income of ₹ 51,02,830/- in the immediately preceding year, i.e. assessment year 2009-10. The assessee filed a comparative analysis of expenditure for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 and the reasons for difference in the expenditure which is tabulated at page 4 of the assessment order. The claim of the assessee was that almost all major item ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e computation of total income. The Assessing Officer held that the said additional income of ₹ 50 lakhs being the value of shortage of stock was to be declared in the computation of total income. This proposition was confronted to the assessee. The Ld. Authorised Representative for the assessee agreed to include the additional income in the computation of total income along with income from house property, other sources as well as net losses from the profit and loss account. Accordingly, the income of the assessee was computed. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of particulars of income. The Assessing Officer hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee by claiming huge losses for the year. The CIT(A) also noted the submission of the assessee agreeing to the said addition. 10. Before CIT(A) further explanation was filed by the assessee that the said surrender of ₹ 50 lakhs was made in the spirit of reaching quietus and putting an end to the litigation. However, the Assessing Officer has ignored the same and levied the penalty. The CIT(A) upheld the levy of penalty in respect of this addition of ₹ 50 lakhs. 11. Both the assessee and revenue are in appeal against the respective portion of order of the CIT(A). 12. The only grievance of the revenue was non-levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the additional income offered on account of shortage of st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
