9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 744X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 85,340/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. He ought not to have done so. 2. Your appellants crave to add, to amend, alter the foregoing grounds of appeal and to take additional ground, if need be". 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee company which is engaged in the business of providing office assistant services had e-filed its return of income on 24.09.2008, declaring total income of Rs. (2,94,999/-). That the case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny assessment. That during the course of the assessment proceedings the A.O while deliberating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cumstances which had led to showing of the aforesaid amount under the head 'Suspense account'. The assessee further submitted before the A.O that as the aforesaid amount had duly been shown in the 'books of accounts' and it had never been the intention of the assessee to conceal or furnish inaccurate particulars in respect of the amount under consideration, therefore, no penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) was liable to be imposed in its hands. The said explanation of the assessee however did not find favor with the A.O, who vide his order dated. 28.03.2013 imposed a penalty of Rs. 85,340/- on the assessee. 4. The assessee carried the order of the A.O imposing penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) before the CIT(A). The assessee by dwelling on the reasons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lf of the assessee, therefore we are constrained to proceed with the appeal after hearing the ld. Departmental representative (for short 'D.R'), perusing the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. The ld. D.R relied on the orders of the lower authorities and therein submitted that in the backdrop of the facts of the case, the A.O had rightly imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in the hands of the assessee, which after thorough deliberations had been upheld by the CIT(A). It was thus averred by the ld. D.R that the appeal of the assessee being devoid of any force was thus liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard the ld. D.R and given a thoughtful consideration to the facts of the case. We find that it remains as a m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of law as had been observed by us hereinabove, as assessment proceedings are separate and distinct from penalty proceedings, therefore, now when the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,76,180/- (supra) was to be held as the 'Unexplained money' of the assessee under Sec. 69, then the same as per the said clearly worded statutory provision could only be related to and held as the income of the assessee for the year in which the investment is found to have been made by the assessee. We thus circumscribing our observations solely for the purpose of adjudication of the present appeal, are thus of the considered view that on the basis of the aforesaid material fact itself, which we find had though categorically been raised by the assessee before the CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
