Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2013 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (6) TMI 151 - ITAT JAIPURPenalty u/s 158BFA(2) - willful attempt on the part of the assessee to conceal the undisclosed income - CIT(A) deleted the levy - addition on account of jewellery - appeal in the case of Smt. Shanti Bai Yadav - Held that:- There is no positive finding that jewellery was unexplained in spite of the explanation given by the assessee, case of CIT v. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain [2010 (7) TMI 769 - Gujarat High Court] held that instruction No. 1916 dated May 11, 1994 can be considered to presume that the sources to the extent of jewellery stated in circular stands explained. If there is anything contrary noticed then the instruction may not be sufficient to explain the source of jewellery. Therefore, the assessee has given the explanation in respect of source of jewellery and the CIT (A) has rightly referred to the fact that mother of the assessee was residing with the assessee. Therefore, there is no case of imposition of penalty in respect of addition on account of jewellery. Difference between the income and expenditure - Held that:- Penalty u/s 158BFA(2) is imposable in respect of undisclosed income which is determined as a result of evidence found during the course of search. The addition here is not based on any evidence found during the course of search and therefore, penalty was not imposable. CIT(A) was justified in cancelling the penalty. Appeal in the case of Shri Dal Chand Yadav - unaccounted marriage expenses - Held that:- It is not clear as to how the authorised officer mentioned that paper relates to the marriage expenses. The assessee has shown withdrawal of Rs. 2,06,240 in the regular books of account. The other figures may be the amounts received from the relatives or the figures may not be for the marriage expenses. The availability of the word Papa on this paper show that this paper is not in the handwriting of the assessee as he would not have used the word Papa. Hence, such document is not sufficient to impose penalty. Similarly, in respect of other additions, there was no material found during the course of search for making the addition. Hence, CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty. Appeal of revenue dismissed.
|