Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 351 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained cash credit u/s.68 - HELD THAT:- It was for the assessee to prove that the loan creditor had advanced the money out of the income of any other source like his capital i.e. saving of earlier years or receipt from any other person from which the loan creditor could have advanced the loan. The observation of the AO while making the addition u/s.68 is that the loan creditor has deposited the amount in cash of ₹ 7,90,000/- before issuing cheque of an amount of ₹ 8,00,000/- to the assessee on the same day. On perusal of the bank statement of the creditor filed by the assessee, it is observed that nowhere it is shown that the assessee has any other income routed through the bank. From the above, it can be inferred that the creditor is a man of means and the creditworthiness of the lender is not substantiated by furnishing the required details as called for by the Assessing Officer as per section 68 of the Income tax Act. In our considered view, the AO is justified in making the addition and ld CIT(A) is fully correct in confirming the same. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - HELD THAT:- Penalty order is based on furnishing of inaccurate particulars but the notice is not specifying exactly on which limb the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated. From the notice dated 12.3.2014 produced during the hearing, it can be seen that the Assessing Officer was not sure under which limb of provisions of Section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessee is liable for penalty. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M/s SSA' Emerald Meadows [2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER] . Since in the instant case also the inappropriate words in the penalty notice has not been struck off and the notice does not specify as to under which limb of the provisions, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) is not sustainable and has to be deleted. We, therefore, set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to cancel the penalty so levied u/s.271(1)(c) - Decided in favour of assessee.
|