9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1082X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... examined the issue in detail but has simply confirmed the penalty by relying on the findings of the AO and the confirmation of the addition by the Ld. CIT (A) in the quantum proceedings. Thus, there is no finding by the authorities below on the issue as to how the ‘concealment’ has come to be established so as to warrant imposition of penalty. Thus, it is apparent that the penalty has been imposed as an automatic outcome of the confirmation of the quantum addition. Considering the entirety of the circumstances, in our view the impugned disallowance does not invite the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 6549/Del /2014 - - - Dated:- 4-10-2017 - SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, HON BLE PRESIDENT AND SHR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) at ₹ 5,62,60,570/- after making an addition of ₹ 62,90,000/- as income from undisclosed sources on account of unsecured loans not accepted by the Assessing Officer. There were certain other disallowances on account of expenses also. On appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of ₹ 62,90,000/- and only confirmed an addition of ₹ 2 lakh under this head being loan received from Shri Sarabjeet Singh Jolly. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to ₹ 6,73,290/- was imposed on this remaining amount of ₹ 2 lakh which was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 4. The Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the Assessing Officer had made an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chapter-VI of the income -tax Act. Thus showing an income of ₹ 55,916/- in net. During the year he has advanced loan of ₹ 10,00,000/- The has not filed his statement of affairs and balance sheet. In view of the findings of the Assessing Officer in the remand report, I sustain the addition of ₹ 2,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer. This ground of appeal is dismissed. 6. Thus, it is undisputed that Shri Jolly had advanced an amount of ₹ 10 lakh to the assessee during the year and only ₹ 2 lakh have been confirmed by the Ld. CIT (A). It is also undisputed that Shri Jolly has accepted as having advanced an amount through an affidavit and the assessee has also furnished documents proving the identity of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is burden the Assessing Officer should not begin with the presumption that he is guilty. Since the burden of proof in penalty proceedings varies from that in the assessment proceedings, a finding in the assessment proceedings that a particular receipt is income cannot automatically be adopted, though a finding in the assessment proceedings constitutes good evidence in the penalty proceedings. In the penalty proceedings the authorities must consider the matter afresh as the question has to be considered from a different angle. It is important to keep in mind the fundamental legal proposition that Assessment proceedings are not conclusive. Assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are separate and distinct. Findings in Assessment proceed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y case where particulars of income are inaccurate, penalty must follow. Even so, the concept of penalty has not undergone change by virtue of the said judgment. Penalty is imposed only when there is some element of deliberate default. 7. Reverting to the facts of the present case, the penalty order is woefully silent on the issue as to how this satisfaction of concealment was arrived at. The quantum addition on which the penalty has been imposed pertains to an addition of ₹ 2 lakhs only sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) out of a total addition of ₹ 10 lakhs. It is also noteworthy that this addition was sustained on the ground that the assessee had failed to prove the source of source but how this has resulted in concealment of inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
