9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 1017X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s deleted. - SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP And SHRI , SANJAY GARG, JM Assessee by : Shri Yogesh Kumar Saxena, Advocate Shri Amandeep Saxena, CA Revenue by : Smt. Meenakshi Vohra, Addl. CIT ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dt. 18/02/2019 of Ld. CIT(A)-1, Ludhiana. 2. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: 1(i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on the facts and in law in upholding order of the A.O. levying penalty both for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in respect of additions of ₹ 1,36,00,030/- made under section 68 by the A.O. (ii) The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that inappropriate wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt of the appellant were from the known sources. (iv) The Ld. CIT(A) has also failed to appreciate that the Ld. A.O. has not brought any evidence on records to draw positive inference that as to how credit entries in saving bank account of the appellant, duly recorded in the books of account of the appellant represent concealed income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. (v) The Ld. CIT(A) has also failed to appreciate that penalty for concealment is attracted if there are clear findings by the Ld. A.O. to hold under which provisions of law addition of ₹ 28,25,138/- was made. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)has erred both on the facts and in law in upholding order of the A.O. levying pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act and estimated addition on account of household expenses respectively. 4.1 On the aforesaid additions the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the act was initiated. However, the A.O. levied the penalty of ₹ 70,84,362/-. 5. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) who deleted the penalty in respect of trading addition of ₹ 56,68,679/- by observing that the said addition was on estimate basis. He also deleted the penalty on the disallowance and the additions which were considered to be general in nature and were made by the A.O. by passing the exparte assessment order. The Ld. CIT(A) sustained the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition of ₹ 1,36,00,000/- and ₹ 28,25 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) are not in existence. On a similar issue the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.C. Builders and Another Vs. Asst. CIT reported at 265 ITR 562 held as under: Where the additions made in the assessment order on the basis of which penalty for concealment is levied, are deleted, there remains no basis at all for levying penalty for concealment and, therefore, in such a case no penalty can survive and the penalty is liable to be cancelled. Ordinarily, penalty cannot stand if the assessment itself is set aside. In the present case also since the additions on the basis of which the impugned penalty was sustained by the Ld.CIT(A) have already been deleted by the Ld. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
