9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1284X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been estimated by the CIT (A) then peak value of the investment cannot be treated as unexplained income which would otherwise amount to double addition which is not permissible under the Act. So, we order to delete the addition made by the CIT (A) by making the peak value of the investment. Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - Reopening of assessment u/s 148 - non compliance of notice sent in the name of Alam Zafar in place of Zafar Alam - no proof of service - HELD THAT:- CIT (A) has confirmed the penalty on the basis of assumptions and presumptions that when the notice to the assessee was issued in the name of Alam Zafar in penalty proceedings and he attended the penalty proceedings then he must have been served in the quantum proceedings also. P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. That CIT(A) is in error in making addition of ₹ 5% of total turnover of ₹ 42,50,993/- by applying section 44AF and treated net profit @ 5% of ₹ 2,12,550/- but CIT(A) is in error in holding that out of turnover peak credit of ₹ 3,39,035/- also added in the income of peak balance in the bank account of same turnover as unexplained income. Therefore, CIT(A) has made addition of ₹ 3,39,035/- as income of the assessee is against the facts and law. 2. That the assessee has furnished the Income Tax Return with Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Meerut as his name is Zafar Alam because the jurisdiction of the case lie with Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Meerut but the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1) ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 (for short the Act ) by making addition of ₹ 42,50,993/- deposited as cash in saving bank account on account of unexplained investment u/s 68 of the Act. 5. Assessee carried the matter by way of an appeal before the ld. CIT (Appeals) who has estimated the profit by applying the provisions of section 44AF of the Act @ 5% and thereby treated an amount of ₹ 2,12,550/- on account of profit as unexplained income of the year under assessment. The CIT (A) also treated an amount of ₹ 3,39,035/- as unexplained income of the year under assessment by taking the peak value of investment by partly allowing the appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the course of arguments. 10. In view of what has been discussed above, present appeal being ITA No.1610/Del./2018 filed by the assessee is partly allowed. ITA NO.1609/DEL/2018 11. Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) on the ground that the assessee has failed to comply with the notice issued u/s 142 (1) of the Act on 27.07.2016 and further notice u/s 144 was issued on 09.12.2016 and 23.12.2016 and consequently completed the assessment u/s 144/147 of the Act on 30.12.2016. AO, after treating the assessee as a defaulter, levied the penalty of ₹ 10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 12. Assessee carried the matter by way of an appeal before the ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
