9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 658X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the course of assessment proceedings after detection of untruthfulness of the version of the assessee. In these circumstances, the view adopted by the CIT(A) of favourable treatment to such assessee cannot be endorsed. We also notice that the penalty has been imposed for concealment of particulars of income which is consistent with the facts of the case. The assessee has not expressed its handicap anywhere before the lower authorities on the alleged vagueness of notice issued under s.274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) which prevented him in his response in any manner. The onus which lays upon the assessee to rebut the presumption of concealment under Explanation - 1 to s.271(1)(c) has not been discharged. Under the circumstances, the order of the CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reply and finally came forward to admit the said loan as unexplained income. The assessee however in the same vain submitted that the admission was made to buy peace and avoid prolonged litigation. The assessee claimed that disclosure has been made voluntarily and requested for non-initiation of penalty. In these circumstances, the additions were made and penalty was imposed thereon. 3. In the first appeal, the CIT(A) found merit and deleted the penalty of ₹ 14,61,570/- levied by the AO under s.271(1)(c) of the Act. The relevant operative para of the order of the CIT(A) is reproduced hereunder:- DECISION: 4. The submissions made by the appellant have been considered with reference to the penalty order passed. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03-2014. The contention of the appellant is not as per the provisions of the Act, as the appeal filed by the appellant was pending before the CIT(A), which was decided on 16-04-2012 and the penalty has, been imposed on 20-03-2014 which is within the time period allowed u/s 275 of the Act. Therefore, this contention of the assessee is dismissed. ii) The second argument taken by the appellant is that the notice dtd, 28-10-2010 issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, it has not been mentioned specifically that whether the appellant has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The appellant relied upon the judgement of CIT vs. White Ford India Ltd. delivered by the High Court of Gujarat, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... does not follow the conclusion that amount agreed to be added was concealed income. On going through the assessment order and penalty order, it is found that the appellant has agreed for the additions with the specific request that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) will not be initiated. Keeping in view these facts and the case laws cited by the appellant, this contention of the appellant is allowed. iv) The appellant further contended that the additions were made u/s 68 of the Act which js a deeming provision for additions made under deeming provisions, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not leviable as decided by the Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad 'D' Bench in the case of ITO vs. Haribhai Devrajbhai Babriya in ITA No.96/Ahd/2011. Keeping in view the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s.Sudarshan Enterprise denied having been lent the money to the assessee. As a consequence of the revelations on enquiry, the assessee grudgingly came forward for admission of the aforesaid loan as unexplained income. Thus, plea of the assessee that the disclosure was made voluntarily or in good faith is difficult to appreciate. Adisclosure made under the fear of a plausible penalty or other proceedings cannot be termed voluntary or made in good faith. The Department was in possession of definite proof that purported lender as reflected in the books of accounts has not lent money at all. In these circumstances, the reliance placed by the CIT(A) in the case of Shadilal Sugar Mills (168 ITR 705)is not contextually applicable. Mere request fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
