Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 279 - ITAT HYDERABADPenalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - disallowance of expenditure/ claims and additions made on the basis of un-reconciled amounts or unconfirmed creditors - CIT(A) deleted penalty levy - Held that:- The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.A. Balasubramaniam and Bros. Co., Vs. CIT [1998 (1) TMI 7 - SUPREME Court] in fact was considering the presumption of concealment where the returned income was less than 80% of income assessed. It was held that Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) became applicable and Income Tax Officer was justified in imposing penalty because, assessee had not been able to discharge the onus which was on it under the Explanation1 to Section 271(1)(c). This case law also is in fact supporting assessee's case wherein, there is no presumption of concealment as the law was amended and further assessee's bonafide explanation was not proved to be bogus. As already stated above, there were some disallowances of the claims made in the P&L A/c and addition on the basis of non-furnishing reconciliations or non-furnishing of confirmations. As seen from the balance sheet, there are many more credits which the AO has accepted as assessee was in a position to furnish the confirmation letters. Just because he could not confirm the two of the credits occurred during the year and two of the credits carried over from earlier year, it cannot be held that assessee's case come under concealment of Income. CIT(A) was correct cancelling the penalty - Decided against revenue.
|