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 723 - AT - Income TaxAddition towards unexplained bank deposits - Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) - CIT(A) deleted penalty levy - Held that:- If any amount is deposited in bank account of the assessee, the assessee has to explain the source from which it was deposited. In the present case, the assessee is not able to explain the deposits. According to the assessee, the assessee is not educated and return subsequent to the search was filed by a Chartered Accountant who obviously has not made out a proper disclosure. The intention of the assessee was to make a proper disclosure, come out clean and pay the taxes. However, it was submitted that it was only the mistake of the Chartered Accountant and not of the assessee in making proper disclosure. Later the assessee accepted for the addition to purchase peace and to avoid prolonged litigation. In our opinion, this contention of the assessee is totally misconceived. It is the duty of the assessee to disclose all income truly and fully while filing the return of income. The assessee cannot shift his responsibility to his Chartered Accountant. Further, the assessee stated it was ill advised by the Chartered Accountant without mentioning the name of the Chartered Accountant. It is not brought on record what advice was given by the Chartered Accountant on this issue. In our opinion, the assessee has concealed particulars of income and also not given any bonafide explanation for this. Hence levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) conformed . See Mak Data (Pv) Ltd. vs. CIT [2013 (11) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT] - Decided against assessee. Addition of E40,00,000/- relating to credits in ICICI bank account - CIT(A) deleted addition - Held that:- In our opinion, how the amount of E40,00,000/- has been considered in the hands of ex-husband is not on record. In our opinion, it is appropriate to remit the issue back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to give reasons on what basis he came to the conclusion that it was shown in the hands of ex-husband. Hence, this issue is remitted back to the file of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for fresh consideration. Decided partly in favour of Revenue for statistical purposes.
|