Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2022 (4) TMI 164

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tiated in the hands of the assessee nor had clearly pointed out the same while imposing the penalty vide his order passed u/s 271(1)(c) - In so far the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) is concerned, we find that the A.O had merely stated that penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act are separately initiated. Coming to the order passed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, we find that while imposing the impugned penalty he had stated that the assessee had concealed his income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income. In our considered view, there is a clear absence of mentioning of the specific default for which impugned penalty proceedings was initiated and also, the basis for imposition of the same. We not being able to persu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... se of survey proceedings excess cash and stock of ₹ 3,02,935/- and ₹ 5,96,399/-, respectively, was found, which was offered by the assessee as his income in the profit and loss account for the year under consideration. Return of income for the assessment year 2006- 07 was thereafter filed by the assessee on 30.03.2007, declaring an income of ₹ 9,11,060/- Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment u/s 143(2) of the Act. Assessment was thereafter framed by the Assessing Officer vide his order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 21.11.2008, wherein the income of the assessee was determined at ₹ 10,84,650/- after, inter alia, making an addition of ₹ 1,17,000/- u/s 68 of the Act tow .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he same could not be substantiated to his satisfaction by the assessee. On a perusal of the assessment order, we find that the assessee in order to support the genuineness of his claim of having raised loans from aforementioned six lenders, had though placed on record copies of the acknowledgements of their Income tax returns, but had failed to comply with the directions of the Assessing Officer wherein he was specifically called upon to produce the said respective persons so that their statements could be recorded on oath. Backed by his aforesaid observation, the Assessing Officer holding a conviction that the assessee had failed to satisfactorily substantiate the genuineness and creditworthiness of the parties from whom loans were claimed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... genuineness of the loan transaction under consideration, or, in other words, failure on his part to place on record clinching documentary evidences substantiating the authenticity of the loan transactions in question to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, though would justifiably lead to addition of the said amounts as unexplained cash credits in his hand, but on such standalone basis would not justify levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. Our aforesaid conviction is fortified by the judgment of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Upendra V. Mithani [ITA (L) No. 1860 of 2009, dated 05.08.2009], wherein the Hon ble High Court while upholding the order of the Tribunal, had observed, that no penalty can be imposed if the f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... gs had been initiated in the hands of the assessee nor had clearly pointed out the same while imposing the penalty vide his order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 27.03.2014. In so far the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 21.11.2008 is concerned, we find that the A.O had merely stated that penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act are separately initiated. Coming to the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, we find that while imposing the impugned penalty he had stated that the assessee had concealed his income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income. In our considered view, there is a clear absence of mentioning of the specific default for which impugned penalty proceedings was i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates