9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1037X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dicial Member The present penalty appeal has been filed by the revenue against order dated 22/12/14 passed by Ld. CIT (A)-24, New Delhi for assessment year 2006-07 on the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of ₹ 38,85,616/- levied by AO being 100% of tax sought to be evaded on concealed income of ₹ 1,29,52,053/-. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of hearing. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: Assessee is a company engaged in the business of real estate development. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A) revenue is in appeal before us now. 3. At the outset Ld.AR submits that this Tribunal in ITA No. 2091/del/2012 vide consolidated order dated 31/12/12 deleted addition of ₹ 1,29,52,063/-made by Ld. AO under section 69C by observing as under: 13. We have heard both the sides on the issue, These bills were raised by brokers were found during the search operation at the residence of Director of assessee. As per revenue, the payments of all these bills were not accounted for in the books of account as these cannot be reconciled with the books of account and only on this basis, the revenue presumed that these payments have been made out of undisclosed source. We have perused the seized material ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e even corporate assessees. Their records could have been easily verified. The seized material relied upon by the AO alone cannot be made a basis for driving adverse inference with regard to the undisclosed expenditure which can be added u/s 69 of the Income-tax Act. In our considered view, material relied upon by the AO for making the addition was merely a correspondence which alone cannot lead to the inference that assessee had incurred -such expenditure. This cannot be made basis for addition made u/s 69 of the Income-tax Act while framing the assessment u/s 153A of the Income-tax. Act,1961. There is no evidence gathered by revenue from anywhere, which could establish a bit of the fact that assessee has paid anything more than whatever r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue relied upon the materials in this regard and also stated that on account of ' Section 69 (e) read with Section 292(e) the presumption logically drawn had to be sustained. He also pointed out to the CIT(Appeals) decision which has substantially upheld the AO s order and that the Tribunal fell l into error in disturbing this finding . Whilst there can be no dispute about the Revenue s contentions that presumption required to be drawn in law on account of the statutory prescription are to be complied with, yet the foundational facts necessary for the Court or 'Tribunal to seek recourse to such stipulation is essential. In the present case apart from the demands made by the five named commission agents or brokers for a higher ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcumstances, the funding by the parent or holding company to the sister concern or subsidiary to advance its business objective would fall within the framework or legitimate expenditure. The Tribunal then applied the settled law to the case. We find no reason to interfere with that conclusion. For the above reasons this Court is of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises for consideration. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 3.2. Ld.AR thus submitted that penalty appeal deserves to be dismissed on the basis of finality obtained of the decision by this Tribunal in quantum appeal. 4. We have perused the submissions advanced by both the sides in the light of the records placed before us and the orders submitted b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
