9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 547X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act or there is not deep concealment for attaining as specified u/s. 271(1)(c) - assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are distinct and findings given in the assessment proceedings though it constitutes good evidence cannot be conclusive in the penalty proceedings. In the penalty proceedings, the entire evidence in case has to undergo a reappraisal in order to establish the guilt of the assessee to prove that there was mensrea in the mind of assessee and to sustained penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the ingredients must be present as we discussed above. We after considering the facts and circumstances of the case we opined that it is not a fit case to levy penalty. Accordingly impugned ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , without there being any enhancement, to simply substitute the satisfaction arrived at by the Assessing Officer.[relying on 84 1TR 183[All]; 94 TTR 154 [All] ;77 ITD 340 [Chd] and ITA No: 5046/Del/2012 dt.10/05/2013. 5. While the learned CIT (A), in confirming the addition of Rs.4,93,360/- in the quantum appeal-copy of the appellate order is enclosed-gave a finding that the assessee has not made any efforts to locate he whereabouts of the trade creditors and that there arises a doubt whether the transaction is genuine or not, without rejecting the quantity and cost of purchases, he erred in confirming the penalty. And for other reasons that may be adduced at the time of hearing, the appellant prays that this appeal be admitted, consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 167/Mds/2014 dated 13.11.2015 remitted the issues back to the file of the CIT(A) for reconsideration by passing a speaking order. Consequent to that effect, the CIT(A) passed an order dated 08.02.2018 where the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed by the CIT(A) and confirmed the addition made by the AO in respect of sundry creditors an amount of Rs. 4,93,360/- . Subsequent to the above, the Assessing Officer passed an order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 27.09.2018 and he levied an penalty of Rs. 1,50,970/- (100% of the tax sought to be evaded u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act) upon the appellant assessee, immediately after it the assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A). However, the appeal was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) and confirmed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concealment of his income. Therefore, it cannot be said that assessee has concealed the particular income with the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act or there is not deep concealment for attaining as specified u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is a well settled law that assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are distinct and findings given in the assessment proceedings though it constitutes good evidence cannot be conclusive in the penalty proceedings. In the penalty proceedings, the entire evidence in case has to undergo a reappraisal in order to establish the guilt of the assessee to prove that there was mensrea in the mind of assessee and to sustained penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the ingredients must be present as we discu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
