2023 (2) TMI 695 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - difference between deposits in bank account and total turnover as unexplained cash credit - As per CIT no infirmity is found in the documents and, therefore, the addition is required to be deleted - HELD THAT:- We note that a perusal of the aforesaid order of ld. CIT (A) fairly shows that assessee has submitted the necessary details and ld. CIT (A) has passed a well-reasoned order giving factual findings. The Revenue has not been able to rebut any of the findings except submitting that these were not before the AO. For the sake of repetition, this argument is totally unsustainable as ld. CIT (A) has asked for remand report for additional documents but AO chose to ignore. In this regard, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) which is a well-reasoned order and uphold the same.

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Addition u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- Penalty made on the addition was already deleted by the ld. CIT (A) which we have also confirmed in our order herein above. As regards deletion of penalty on the balance amounts, we are in conformity with the reasoning of ld. CIT (A) that these additions do not warrant levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the touchstone of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT. Hence, we uphold the order of ld. CIT (A).

Revenue appeal dismissed.