9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Tribunal because of unsatisfactory explanation given by the assessee in support of such credit, but it is not a good case for imposition of penalty, since it relates to lack of tendering explanation to the satisfaction of the ld. Assessing Officer and not disproving the contention of the assessee with regard to the genuineness of the receipts. In the present case, the explanation given by the assessee not disproved by the ld. Assessing Officer, as such there is no conclusive evidence to show that assessee has concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Further regarding agricultural income, the assessee made an honest plea that assessee does not own any agricultural land. It has earned from the ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 25,000/- e) Consultancy charges 5,00,000/- Aggrieved, the assessee carried the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) On appeal, Ld.CIT(A) had partly granted relief resulting in the process following additions were sustained. a) Sundry creditor-M/s.Sabari Cottage Ind. 1,67,001/- b) Loan Creditor - Mrs.Malliga 1,00,000/- c) Loan Creditor - Mrs.Radhamani 2,00,000/- d) Loan Creditor - Mr.Velumani 1,65,000/- e) Agricultural income 1,25,000/- The Ld.CIT(A) confirmed addition to the extent of ₹ 1,67,001/- on account of sundry creditors, by holding that the party viz. M/s.Sabari Cottage Industry failed to respond to the summons issued which puts a doubt on the genuineness of the transaction. After th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00/-: In respect of summons, her husband Velumani appeared and confirmed the trade credit of ₹ 2,25,946/- and denying having given any advance towards construction. Hence, the addition was confirmed, though the assessee made a plea that ₹ 1 lakh towards house advance, which was not repaid by assessee as on date. iv) Mr.Velumani - ₹ 1,65,000/-: The ld.A.R submitted before the lower authorities that it represents advance towards plot and it was wrongly stated by that party that ₹ 1,65,000/- has been wrongly stated as advance adjusted in December, 2005. According to lower authorities, since it was adjusted in December, 2005, no balance was outstanding as on 31.03.2006 and the explanation given by the ld.A.R was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the ld. Assessing Officer, as such there is no conclusive evidence to show that assessee has concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income.
4.3 Further regarding agricultural income, the assessee made an honest plea that assessee does not own any agricultural land. It has earned from the agricultural land owned by assessee's father-in-law. There is no material brought on record to show that it is bogus or false. Being so, we find no reason to levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, even on this discrepancy. We are inclined to delete the penalty in this case.
5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced on 06th July, 2016, at Chennai. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
