9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 744X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 CIT(A), but had not been adverted to by the latter, no penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) could be justified in respect of the amount of ₹ 2,76,180/-(supra) during the year under consideration, viz. A.Y. 2008-09. That as we have quashed the levy of penalty imposed by the A.O under Sec. 271(1)(c) on the basis of our aforesaid observations, we therefore refrain from adverting to the other contentions raised by the assessee before the lower authorities while assailing the validity of the penalty imposed. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. - I.T.A. No.1636/Mum/2016 - - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee, was found to be quantified under the head Suspense account . The assessee on being called upon by the A.O to put forth an explanation as regards the same, therein vide its letter dated 18.10.2010 submitted that the as the aforesaid amount which was found deposited in its bank account was unidentifiable and the source of the same could not be traced, therefore, the same had been categorized under the head Suspense account . The A.O however not finding favor with the explanation of the assessee, therein treated the same as the latters Unexplained income and added it to its returned income. The A.O while culminating the assessment proceedings also initiated penalty proceedings under Sec. 271(1)(c) in the hands of the assessee for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... op of the same therein averred that no penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) was called for in its hands. The assessee further submitted that as the aforesaid amount of ₹ 2,76,180/-(supra) was deposited in its bank account on 12.04.2006, i.e in the F.Y. 2006-07, therefore the same could not be assessed as its income for the year under consideration, viz. A.Y. 2008-09, and resultantly no penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) could be imposed in the hands of the assessee during the year under consideration, viz. A.Y. 2008-09. That it was further averred by the assessee that as the aforesaid amount of ₹ 2,76,180/-(supra) had been offered as income by transferring the same to the Profit loss a/c in F.Y. 2010-11, therefore the said factum in itsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e account by the assessee, had been upheld by the CIT(A). We are conscious of the fact that penalty proceedings are nothing short of quasi criminal proceedings, and also not oblivious of the fact that assessment proceedings are separate and distinct from the penalty proceedings, and thus merely because an addition had been made in the hands of an assessee, cannot automatically lead to levy of penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c). We thus in the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law, thus proceed with the adjudication of the validity of the penalty imposed by the A.O under Sec. 271(1)(c) in the hands of the assessee. We find from the records that the assessee while assailing the levy of penalty had submitted before the CIT(A) that as th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
