9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nataka High Court, allowed appeal of assessee holding that notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) was bad in law, as it did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings had been initiated and High Court, on appeal, held that there was no substantial question of law arising for determination, SLP was to be dismissed. Even on merits, in respect of addition under section 68 of the Act on account of cash deposited in the bank, we note that the AO in the assessment order has made a specific noting that the amount in question was received on 04-04- 2014, which falls outside the purview of this assessment year under consideration. Further, in respect of addition the assessee has submitted that this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant craves to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing of the appeal. Total Tax Effect 67,053 3. The brief facts of the case are that for the assessment year under consideration, in quantum proceedings, three additions were made by the Ld. Assessing Officer: firstly, disallowance of claim under section 54 of the Act (₹ 1,58,12, 584/-), secondly addition under section 68 for cash deposit in bank account (₹ 1,10, 000/-) and thirdly, difference in salary income (₹ 7000). The addition in respect of claim of section 54F of the Act amounting to ₹ 1,58,12,584/- was deleted by Ld. CIT(Appeals) in appeal, while the other two additions were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ous dates. The assessee was requested to explain the sources of such cash deposits vide above show cause notice. The assessee by his letter dated 09-03-2015, has submitted the details of source of cash deposited in the bank account. The submission of the assessee has been considered, however the same is not fully acceptable as regarding cash deposit of Rs. 2,10,000/- the assessee stated in his submission that same has been received from Shri Ishwarbhai M. Desai, though vide show cause notice dt. 16-02-2015 vide para ii the assessee was to submit necessary confirmation letter along with necessary documents to prove the sources of income in case of above mentioned person, the assessee again fail to submit the same in his submission on 03 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnished inaccurate particulars of such income , which is indicative that penalty has been initiated by way of non application of mind and the Ld. Assessing Officer was unsure whether the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Further, the counsel for the assessee submitted that even on merits, since the quantum of additions was very low, the assessee decided not to file appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals). However, in the instant set of facts, penalty is not sustainable since the assessee has furnished proof of both the identity of the creditor as well as filed confirmation of the creditor before the revenue authorities. Also, in respect of shortfall of ₹ 7000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner (Appeals) showed that no clear-cut finding had been reached as to whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) was being levied for concealment of particulars of income by assessee or whether any inaccurate particulars of income had been furnished, order of penalty could not be sustained. Again, the Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Pradeep Sugamchand Kawadiya Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)ITA No. 110/Ahd/2018 held the penalty is not sustainable when the same has been initiated and levied without specifying the alleged guilt committed by the assessee either for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Raipur Tribunal in the case of Deepak Kumar Patel v. ITO in ITA No. 173/RPR/2018 held that Section 271 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment order (at para 8) has made a specific noting that the amount in question was received on 04-04- 2014, which falls outside the purview of this assessment year under consideration. Further, in respect of addition of ₹ 7000/-, the assessee has submitted that this was an inadvertent mistake in mentioning the incorrect salary figure, which was rectified before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. It is well-settled proposition that penalty cannot be imposed merely because assessee accepted assessment order levying tax and interest, unless it is discernible from assessment order that addition was on account of concealment (CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory[2013] 35 taxmann.com 250 (Karnataka). Therefore, in v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
