9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been made. As such, none of the authorities below has doubted on the amount advanced by the assessee to such party. The assessee claimed that such additions were highly debatable, but to avoid the litigation, the same were accepted. Looking at the amount of the addition we are of the view that there was no deliberate act on the part of the assessee to conceal the particulars of income as pointed out by the authorities below, therefore we hold that there cannot be any penalty of the assessee in the given facts and circumstances. We find support and guidance from the judgment of the supreme court in case of Dilip N Shroff Vs. JCIT [ 2007 (5) TMI 198 - SUPREME COURT ] wherein as held as signifies a deliberate act or omission on the part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ticulars. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, later, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before hearing of the appeal. The solitary issue raised by the assessee is that the Ld.CIT (A) erred in confirming the penalty for ₹ 1,03,480/-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 engaged in the business of real estate consultancy. The assessee is also a director in a company namely Miles Motors private Ltd dealing in automobile business. The assessment was framed under section 147 of the Act by the AO vide order dated 28-03-2013 after making the following additions: 1) Unsecured loan ₹ 16,12,500/- 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to the extent of 97% were deleted by the Ld. CIT (A) in the quantum proceedings. Thus it is implied that there was no intention of the assessee to evade the tax by concealing the particulars of income. 6.2 The assessee also submitted that he had sold various financial assets having negligible values. Moreover the clarification furnished to the AO was not found to be false or bogus as per explanation 1 of section 271(1)(c ) of the Act. 7. However, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty levied by the AO by observing that the assessee failed to furnish the evidence in support of his contention. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. The Ld. AR before us reiterated the submissions as made before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utual Fund ₹ 280.00 iv. Income from share trading ₹ 8,509.00 9.4 The assessee claimed that such additions were highly debatable, but to avoid the litigation, the same were accepted. Looking at the amount of the addition we are of the view that there was no deliberate act on the part of the assessee to conceal the particulars of income as pointed out by the authorities below, therefore we hold that there cannot be any penalty of the assessee in the given facts and circumstances. 9.5 In holding so we find support and guidance from the judgment of the supreme court in case of Dilip N Shroff Vs. JCIT reported in 291 ITR 519 wherein it was held as under: It signifies a deliberate act or omission on the part of the assessee. Such deli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
