9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, on the assessee. "(a)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, when the assessee offered for taxation genuine loans to avoid protracted litigation? (b)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in reversing the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) cancelling the penalty after due consideration of the facts and judicial decisions? (c)Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in upholding levy of pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led that the two amounts of Rs. 3,00,000 each shown in the names of Shri Rueben Robert Ponnia and Shri Ananda Kumar Jagannathan came from the savings bank account of Shri R.Jaganathan, the Managing Partner of the assessee-firm. 8.1.The AO examined the bank pass book of Shri Rueben Robert Ponnia and found that the balance in this account never exceeded Rs. 15,000. It was also found that Shri Rueben Robert Ponnia owned 5 acres of dry land and that he did not carry out any agricultural operation during the past three years. The enquiries conducted by the AO showed that Shri Rueben Robert Ponnia did not have the creditworthiness to lend a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 to the assessee-firm. 9.It is seen that in the accounts of Shri Rueben Robert Ponni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in reversing the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) cancelling the penalty after due consideration of the facts and judicial decisions? 4.Learned counsel for the appellant-assessee, relying upon the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal, in (2000) 241 ITR 124 (M.P.), submitted that merely because the assessee agreed to the addition of cash credits in the name of two persons, viz. Mr.Rueban Robert Ponnia and Mr.Ananda Kumar Jagannathan, son of a partner of the assessee firm, the learned Tribunal as well as the Assessing Authority were not justified in imposing pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ash credits and therefore, imposition of penalty to the minimum extent by 100% has to be upheld and no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. 6.Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present case. The matter of explanation furnished by the assessee firm, being accepted by the learned Tribunal or not, is a fact finding exercise and unless the findings of the Tribunal can be held to be perverse, in our opinion, no substantial question of law arises. We do not find any such perversity in the order passed by the learned Tribunal. The Tribunal has already reduced the penalty to the minimum level of 100% of tax on such concealed income. It cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
