Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2017 (3) TMI 1223 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s.271(1)(c) - Held that - As emerges from this tribunal s quantum order that it is not an instance wherein the assessee had not offered any explanation or adduced altogether false explanation in order to state source of the impugned cash deposits. The fact remains that the assessee has already proved to have been engaged in commission business in automobile sector wherein it is not always possible to file all the relevant confirmations. Learned co-ordinate bench also appears to have benefit of opening balance accumulated profit as well as peak credit after preparing a fund flow statement. We take into account the same to conclude that this is not a fit case to invoke the impugned penalty provision as the assessee has not been able to substantiate his claim in quantum proceedings. We wish to observe here that the hon ble apex court in Reliance Petroproducts case (2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT) has already settled the law that quantum and penalty proceedings are separate and each and every disallowance / addition made in the course of former does not ipso facto attract the latter penal provision in the Act. We keep in mind the same and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee
|