9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A). No findings were given by Ld. CIT(A) on such evidences. Thus, considering the aforesaid factual decision and the submission of ld.AR of the assessee that the two additions are basically made on estimation basis, we find merit in his submission. It is settled law that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable on estimated addition. So far as addition no (iii) is concerned, we are of the view that with regard to these additions the assessee has given evidences, on which no findings was given by Ld. CIT(A), in our view, the assessee reasonably explained the facts qua this addition before Ld. CIT(A. Therefore, in our view, this is not a fit case for sustaining the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, even on third addition. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A No.240/SRT/2017 - - - Dated:- 20-4-2021 - Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'ble Judicial Member And Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'ble Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Sapnesh Sheth CA For the Revenue : Smt. Usha Shrote Sr.DR ORDER PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMEBER: 1. This appeal by Assessee is directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estricted to ₹ 275,459/- and additions of ₹ 6,83,400/- was restricted to ₹ 3,42,400/-. After receipt of order of ld.CIT(A) in quantum assessment, the AO passed the order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied penalty @100% of the additions sustained by the ld.CIT(A). The A.O. worked out the penalty of ₹ 8,66,167/- vide order dated 30.11.2015. On further appeal before ld. CIT(A) the action of A.O. in levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was upheld. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before this Tribunal. 4. We have heard the submission of the ld.Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee and ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue and perused the material available on record. The ld.AR of the assessee submits that in the assessment order, the AO made three additions, which were upheld by Ld. CIT(A) in quantum assessment. The assessee filed appeal before Tribunal in quantum assessment, wherein the first addition of ₹ 19,90,400/- was restricted to ₹ 2,56,590/-, as a peak credit, the additions of ₹ 3,05,420/-, which was restricted to ₹ 2,75,459/- by Ld. CIT(A) , was further reduce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at both the parties below have failed to appreciate the facts that on various occasions, the assessee has withdrawn cash from the same account and deposited the said cash in the same bank account after the interval of time. Therefore, in our considered opinion the entire amount should not be added to the total income of the assessee. It is settled proposition of law that only unexplained deposits could be subjected to tax. If an assessee is unable to demonstrate that he deposited the amount of earlier were withdrawn from the same account, in that case, the AO could not be justified to subject both credits to tax. We find that the claim of the assessee that the cash deposits made in the bank accounts are trading receipts on account of textile business. However, the assessee has failed to produce necessary documentary evidence before the lower authorities to substantiate its claim that cash deposits represented the sale proceeds of its business income. However, on the same time, the entire cash deposits could not be subjected to tax as the assessee explanation of the assessee is unsatisfactory. The learned Counsel fairly conceded that only peak credit at ₹ 2, 56, 590 as ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvestment in shares was made partly by finance and partly out of sale proceeds of the shares and partly from bank account by way withdrawals by cheque was not find favour of the assessee. 11. In appeal, the CIT (A) observed after going through remand report that the AO has accepted the narrations given by the appellant in respect of nature of cheque/transfer deposits. However, the AO in in the remand report has specifically mentioned that profit element in respect of sale transactions should be enhanced to ₹ 13,77,296. Though the appellant was given an opportunity to reply on this, he did not address this issue in his reply and express inability to furnish any further information. Therefore, profit from shares was estimated at 20% of sale proceeds (cheque/transfer deposits of ₹ 13, 77, 296) ₹ 2,75, 495/-. 12. Being, aggrieved the assessee filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that the profit element in shares transaction remains very low hence, the estimation @ 20% of share transaction is on higher side hence, same may be scaled down. 13. Per contra, the ld. Sr. D.R. relied on lower authorities. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
