9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . No.741/2012 2. Revenue is aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A) deleting the penalty of Rs.6,99,273/- levied by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(C) of the I.T. Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs.1,13,287/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 determining the income of the assessee at Rs.19,08,840/- after making following addition:- Head Amount On account of perquisites 48652 On account of payment by employer (Perquisites) 21000 Balance Sheet difference 53028 Bogus credit of Benami Deposits 1400000 Interest payment on above bogus deposits 64125 Interest payment to ingenious depositor 64052 On account of household expenses 44700 Total 1695557 The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is penalty. Further aggrieved, now the Revenue is in appeal before us. 5. After hearing both the parties and perusing the record we find that penalty has been imposed by the A.O. on the addition made by him which were upheld by the I.T.A.T. The main addition in respect of which penalty u/s 271(1)(C ) has been imposed relates to cash credit of Rs.14 lakhs. While making this addition of Rs.14 lakhs, the A.O. was of the view that since assessee failed to file Permanent Account Number or confirmation in respect of the depositors, the assessee has intentionally evaded the details so as to substantiate the source of deposit to the satisfaction of the A.O. The assessee's consistent stand has been that since the assessee accepted these deposits b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onal High Court decision in the case of National Textiles vs. CIT (supra) on similar facts. In view of this, ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the penalty imposed by the A.O. 6. The other addition on which the penalty has been imposed are on account of interest of Rs.64,125/- paid to the depositors of Rs.14 lakhs which was treated as unexplained and further disallowance of Rs.64,052/- to some other depositors as being non-genuine expenditure. Since we have upheld the order of ld. CIT(A) deleting the penalty on the addition of Rs.14 lakhs for the same reasons the order of ld. CIT(A) deleting the penalty on these amounts is also upheld. 7. The remaining addition on which the penalty has been levied was on account of low household withdrawals o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9/- and Rs.5,46,896/- involved similar issues. The assessee could not prove the genuineness of deposits and confirmation of transactions and therefore, the addition was made and the A.O. has also imposed penalty on this amount. We further find that assessee had given certain information regarding the deposits but the same could not be substantiated further by the assessee and therefore the addition was upheld even at the level of Hon'ble ITAT. These facts are similar to the facts for the assessment year 1994-95 where the penalty was imposed on addition of Rs.14 lakhs. While deciding the issue for that year we have held that on the basis of the facts available on record the imposition of penalty was not justified. Therefore, following our de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
