9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the penalty. Therefore, it is case where the explanation has been furnished by the assessee and necessary confirmation has also been filed, non-acceptance thereof may be basis for making the addition, however, the same cannot be the basis for levy of penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the result, the levy of penalty on such addition is hereby deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed wrong claim of ₹ 4,69,664/- with intention to evade the tax and shown Nil income. The appellant also not disclose the ₹ 13,000/- in his books of account with intention to-evade the tax on this amount. Therefore this is a fit case for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on concealed income of ₹ 4,82,664/-. The Assessing Officer rightly imposed the penalty of ₹ 4,82,664/- @ 100% sought to evade the tax. Accordingly I confirm the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on concealed income of ₹ 4,82,664/- of ₹ 30,150/- and balance amount of penalty of ₹ 9,67,460/- is cancel. This ground is partly allowed." 2. We therefore find that the penalty has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r referring to the findings in the assessment order and in absence of any explanation submitted by the assessee, has levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act stating that the assessee has concealed the particulars of its income and which has been sustained by the ld CIT(A) and against the said findings, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. During the course of hearing, the ld AR submitted that the Assessing officer has failed to record any direction to initiate penalty proceedings in terms of section 271(IB) vide passing the assessment order under section 143(3) r/w 144 dated 24.02.2014 and hence, the entire proceedings are required to be quashed. In support, reliance was placed on the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in case of D.M. M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment proceeding assessee did not make any compliance of any notices and The assessee did not furnished any documentary evidence in support of its claim regarding exemption u/s 10(23C)/12A of the I.T. Act, 1961. Therefore, vide this officer letter No. 1336 dated 31.12.2013 the assessee was offered final opportunity and was also asked to show caused that why gross receipts of ₹ 38,45,391/- should not be taxed under income tax Act, treating the same as a business receipts as the assessee has not submitted any documentary evidence in support of the claim that charitable activities were conducted during the year .No compliance were made on fixed date and thereafter till date. In view of these facts, I have no option except to compl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emand notice, challan and other necessary forms. Charges tax and interest U/s ----------- of the Income Act, 1961 as per calculation sheet (ITNS150) appended with the order and which also forms part of it." 8. As it apparent from the assessment order, there is no direction for initiation of penalty proceedings by the Assessing officer, therefore, the deeming fiction created by virtue of provision of section 271(IB) in terms of deemed satisfaction of the Assessing officer for initiation of penalty proceedings doesn't apply in the instant case. Further, on perusal of relevant part of the assessment order, wherein the claim of exemption of the assessee u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) has been denied and surplus of receipts over expenditure has been brough ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsecured loan from Shri Chhitarmal. Confirmation was also provided. Details in the form of ID proof was, however, not available. Thus, by explaining all the reasons, the assessee has discharged burden cast upon it. Thereafter, it is the duty of the Assessing Officer to disprove that the explanation given by the assessee is neither correct nor bonafide. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) is not correct in upholding the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer without considering the explanation given by the assessee. In support, reliance was placed on the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of National Textiles v. CIT 249 ITR 125. 10. The ld DR is heard who has relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 11. Heard both the parties ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
