9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER PER WASEEM AHMED ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Ahmedabad [Ld. CIT(A) in short] of dated 01/03/2016, arising in the matter of assessment order passed under s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) dated 19/02/2013 relevant to Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2000-01. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. CIT( A) has erred in law and facts in confirming penalty Vis. 271(1)(c) of₹ 39,7561-. The penalty needs deletion. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 39,756.00 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is an individual and drawing income by way of salary and share of profit/interest from the partnership firm. The assessee in the year under consideration claimed to have done the retail business of imitation jewellery which was not disclosed in the income tax return. The deposits in the bank accounts amounting to ₹37,90,956.00 represent the sale proceeds. The assessee further claimed that the entire amount of deposits in the bank cannot be treated as income and accordingly offered 5% of the turnover as provided under section 44AF of the Act. However, the AO has taken the peak credit in the bank account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. The learned AR before us filed the written submissions stating that there cannot be any penalty on account of the addition based on the peak credit. 8. On the other, the learned DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 9. We have heard the ld. DR and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, we note that the penalty has been imposed by the AO u/s 271 (1)(c) without mentioning the specific charge in its penalty order dated 20/8/2013, whether, it was levied on account of concealment of income or furn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eering Works (supra). In the said decision, the Division Bench came to the conclusion that language of and/or may be proper in issuing a notice for penalty, but it was incumbent upon the Assessing Authority to come to a positive finding as to whether there was concealment of income by the assessee or whether any inaccurate particulars of such income had been furnished by them. If no such clear cut finding is reached by the authority, penalty cannot be levied. It was a case in which in final conclusion the authority had recorded that I am of the opinion that it will have to be said that the assessee had concealed its income and/or that it had furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. It was in this respect the Bench observed that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
