9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1460X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Having done so, assessee cannot turn around and say that such addition ought not have been made by the ld. CIT(A). Assessee cannot plead for telescoping of admitted income with what is found by the Assessing authority to be undisclosed income. We thus do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A). Grounds 4 and 5 of the assessee stand dismissed. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - income arrived at estimated basis - assessee in its original return of income had shown only income from salary and income from house property and never revealed that it was doing any business, much less a civil contract business - Held that:- Question of concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars has to be answered with reference to the original return filed by the assessee, and not based subsequent computations or revised return filed when assessee became aware that Assessing Officer was having information on income not disclosed in the original returns. Thus, in our opinion there was clear furnishing of inaccurate particulars as well as concealment of income. Even in the revised computation filed, during the course of assessment proceedings, assessee had admitted income of only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... listed in the table above already excluded cheques received from M/s. Baba Foundations P. Ltd. As per the ld. AO account copies of the assessee in the books of M/s. Baba Foundations P. Ltd were verified and such exclusions correctly done by him. He held that the credits aggregating ₹ 1,02,29,512/- was unexplained and an addition was made u/s.69 of the Act. 4. Apart from the above, ld. AO on verification of the running account assessee had in M/s. Baba Foundations P. Ltd, found that assessee had repaid ₹ 34,10,000/- against loans aggregating to ₹ 40,25,000/- received from M/s. Baba Foundations P. Ltd. According to the ld. AO there was no explanation for the source for making the repayments. An addition of ₹ 34,10,000/- was made u/s.69 of the Act also. 5. Aggrieved, assessee moved in appeal before ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) dismissed such appeal for a reason that assessee failed to produce necessary evidence in support its contentions. Thereupon assessee moved this Tribunal and this Tribunal through its order in ITA 968/Mds/2014, dated 4.02.2015 remitted the issues back to the ld. CIT(A) with the following observations. We have heard rival content ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The issue, to be considered here, is explained credits in banks, repayment of loans without explaining the source for repayment In these circumstances, it is submitted that it was not ignorance on the part of AO to consider revised memo but non compliance on the part of the assessee to furnish evidences in support of claim during the assessment proceedings wherein the assessee was based to do so. B) Cash credits ₹ 30,94,295/- peak credit has been worked out by the assessee at ₹ 4,00,000/- on 22.04.2008. It is reiterated that peak credit has to be calculated by the AO, if he thinks so, and not by the assessee. Instead of explaining the sources for this entire ₹ 30,94,295/-, assessee has resorted to the aid of peak credit. It is stated in additional evidence that the assessee has received cash to tune of ₹ 33.50 lakhs from M/s.Baba Foundation. Here the question is on proving the source of repayment to M/s Baa Foundations. Even today, the sources have not been explained. This is not to be allowed as per the Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore the offer of ₹ 4,00,000/- is not to be accepted. 7. After perusing the explanation of the assessee and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4,00,000 c) Unexplained investment in working capital (Rs.28 lakhs less cash investment of ₹ 4 lakhs) Rs.24,00,000 Total undisclosed income from civil construction business ₹ 39,40,360 8. Based on the above findings, ld. CIT(A) also proceeded to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the sum of ₹ 39,40,360/- which he considered to be concealed income of the assessee. 9. Now before us, assessee in its appeal against the quantum additions has raised five grounds. Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that he was not pressing ground No.1. 10. Vide its ground 2, assessee assails the addition of ₹ 24,00,000/- made towards working capital. 11. We have considered the rival contentions. Reason why the addition of ₹ 24,00,000/- was made by the ld. CIT(A) appears at para 18 of his order which is reproduced hereunder:- 18. Further, in a civil construction business minimum working capital is required to carry on the business. The appellant has not maintained any books of accounts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority to be undisclosed income. We thus do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A). Grounds 4 and 5 of the assessee stand dismissed. 16. Now we take up the appeal of the assessee against levy of penalty u/s.271(1) (c) of the Act. Its plea is that there was no concealment, since the income was arrived at estimated basis. 17. We have heard the rival contentions carefully. It is true that the income of the assessee was arrived on an estimated basis. However, assessee in its original return of income had shown only income from salary and income from house property and never revealed that it was doing any business, much less a civil contract business. It also did not show any income from such business. It was only when the ld. AO brought to the notice of the assessee the credits in its bank accounts, assessee came up with the idea of a civil contract business. Even this explanation was brought up by the assessee, first time before ld. CIT(A) and never made before the ld. AO. In the first round of proceedings, claim of the assessee was that cash credits included income disclosed on account of salary and house property income. It is true that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
