Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 462 - AT - Income TaxLevy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - huge cash deposited in bank account - as per CIT-A concrete information procured from Enforcement Directorate and CBI wing of the Department was available with Assessing Officer regarding routing of money - Held that:- Addition sustained by the CIT(A) is merely by estimation of income made by the Assessing Officer. Assessing Officer proceeded to levy penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) on the basis of the findings under the quantum proceedings and had not independently examined the matter in the penal proceedings for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). Even on this procedural count, the penalty levied cannot be sustained. Though the CIT(A) had sustained the addition, the assessee had not filed any appeal against that order, that by itself does not prove that there is any conclusive material to suggest that the assessee has earned additional income determined by the Assessing Officer. Penalty cannot be levied in this kind of situation. The addition was only on account of assessment of income on the deposits made into the account of the assessee’s bank. The assessee could not prove that there was willful or gross negligence on the part of the assessee, resulting thereby the assessee concealed the income to that extent. There was no deliberate concealment on the part of the assessee. - No penalty levy - Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Raj Bans Singh (2004 (8) TMI 73 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT), that when income is estimated by different authorities right from Assessing Officer to Tribunal and it was a simple case of one estimate against another estimate, and therefore, penalty cannot be levied. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|