9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 594X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be levied when the addition is estimated. We therefore find that the levy of penalty based on the addition made by an estimate cannot be a valid ground and hence it should be deleted. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. - SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant : Sri GVN Hari, AR For the Respondent : Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. AR ORDER PER S. BALAKRISHNAN, Accountant Member : The captioned two appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre [Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC] vide DIN Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1046470694(1), dated 26/10/2022 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Ld. AO levied penalty of Rs. 4,45,924/- U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act citing that the Ld. CIT(A) has sustained the addition of Rs. 13,24,790/- as unexplained investment in property. The Ld. AO considered that the assessee has concealed the income and therefore it is justified in levying of penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO on the penalty proceedings, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC considering that the assessee has not disclosed his true income in the return of income, confirmed the penalty levied by the Ld. AO and thereby dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before us by raising ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee has not concealed any particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars warranting levy of penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that since the assessee could not explain the investment to the satisfaction of the Ld. CIT(A), it shall not be a ground for levy of penalty. He therefore pleaded that the penalty levied shall be quashed. Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee initially did not disclose the true particulars while filing the return of income while it was unearthed during the survey proceedings. The Ld. DR further submitted that since the assessee has not disclosed his investment in the return of income it amounts to concealment of particulars of income and hence the levy of penalty by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xtent of Rs. 10 lakhs and has disallowed an amount of Rs. 13,24,790/- [Rs. 23,24,790 Rs. 10,00,000] as undisclosed. It was also explained by the Ld. AR that the assessee did not maintain any books of account during the impugned assessment year as there was no business carried on by the assessee. It was also explained by the Ld. AR that the assessee did not contest the various additions with respect to excess claim of interest on housing loan etc., before the Ld. CIT(A). The only addition made by the Ld. CIT(A) is with respect to investment in the property to the extent of Rs. 13,24,790/- wherein the Ld. CIT (A) has estimated that the assessee has sufficient sources for an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs based on the income tax returns filed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
