TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 991X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dumb document". Revenue Department had not made sufficient enquiry so as to establish that in fact the said document had unearthed a concealed business activity of the assessee. In the absence of any such evidence, the addition so made by the AO remained un-corroborated, hence, we hereby reverse the findings and allow this ground. Since the addition in quantum proceedings has been deleted by the Coordinate Bench the penalty does not survive, therefore we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld.CIT(A), same is hereby upheld - Decided in favour of assessee. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - unexplained cash deposits - Held that:- In the present case, the AO has given a clear finding that the assessee is guilty of concealing the particular ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee could have claimed the business loss in the year in which such short payment was received on account of shortage and the same was allowable deduction considering the nature of business. 1(ii). The ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the fact that the shortage was much beyond the accepted limit, and then the onus is on the assessee to prove the same, and the assessee failed to bring any evidence during the course of assessment proceedings and even at the appellate stage. 1(iii). The ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that in the case of the assessee the amount was not receivable out of any sale, service of merchandise, advance of any amount which has become irrecoverable because of insolvency, willful non-paymen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Representative of the assessee. The AO imposed penalty on addition of ₹ 30,27,970/- and addition of ₹ 3,05,766/-. The assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) against the imposition of penalty and the ld.CIT(A) directed the AO to delete the penalty levied on the addition of ₹ 30,27,970/- and confirmed the penalty levied on ₹ 3,05,766/-. Against this, both the Revenue and the Assessee are in appeals before us. 4. The ld.Sr.DR supported the order of the AO. On the contrary, ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the addition has been deleted by the Hon ble Tribunal, therefore the penalty does not survive. 5. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the side of the Revenue even no such attempt was ever made to make an enquiry from those parties whose names were printed on the said paper. Because of these reasons, ld.AR Mr. Mukund Bakshi has emphasized that the said document was nothing but a bald document. For this legal proposition, case laws cited are:- 1. ACIT vs. Satyapal Vasan 295 ITR (AT) 352 [ITAT Jabalpur] 2. CIT vs. Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Mad.) 3. CIT vs. S.M. Aggarwal (2007) 293 ITR 43 (Del.) 4. Jaya S.Shetty vs. ACIT (1999) 69 ITD 336 (Mum.) 5. Bansal Strips P.Ltd. vs. ACIT (2006) 99 ITD 177 (Del.) 18. From these decisions, it transpires that if an addition is to be made on the basis of a seized document, then it mus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prayed to be directed to be deleted. 2. Your appellant craves liberty to add, alter, amend or delete any or all the grounds of appeal stated above. 6.1. The ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that as per para-11 of the penalty order, the AO has not given a clear finding whether the assessee is guilty of concealing the particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. He submitted that the AO has observed that the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act is required to be levied for concealing the particulars of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In support of this contention, ld.counsel for the assessee has relied on the judgement of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
