TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1506X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duce these creditors, including Y in whose case summons sent under section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were received back unserved, that the assessee found it expedient to surrender the amounts, but merely because the assessee had surrendered the amounts it did not follow that the amount agreed to the added represented its concealed income. The surrender so made also stood accepted and the Revenue had brought no material on record, besides the factum of the assessee. The Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty Assessee has not furnished inaccurate particulars of income, however, it is a case of change of opinion. Under these circumstances, in our view the penalty in dispute is totally unwarranted and deserve to be deleted. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessee had deposited ₹ 5,00,000/- each on 17.2.2007 and 24.2.2009 respectively totalling to ₹ 10,00,000/-. The AO asked the Assessee to furnish source of cash deposits in the aforesaid bank account totalling to ₹ 10,00,000/-. However, the Assessee failed to furnish evidence regarding source of deposits. The AO also found that on the same the entire amount was transferred to one Smt. Santosh Jain. The AO initiated action u/s. 147 of the Act on 23.3.2011 by way of issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. In response to the same the Assessee submitted that the original return filed be treated as return filed in compliance to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The AO finally issued notice u/s. 144 of the Act dated 1.12.2010 requiring ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. CIT(A) has reproduced at Page 2 of the impugned order. The Assessee pleaded that all these 9 persons are small shop keepers and they deposited the money for purchase of different items. The Assessee is maintaining proper books of accounts i.e. cash book, ledger etc. All amounts in dispute are duly reflected in the cash book and verifiable. Assessee also requested that if the Ld. CIT(A) is not satisfied with the reply of the assessee, then for peace of mind and to avoid further litigation assessee is ready to surrender part of the above amount and in toto subject to no penal action. After considering the reply filed by the Assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) has held that Assessee has not produced 9 persons but in his submissions has pleaded to surr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concluded that the cash deposits created as income from undisclosed sources, burden is on the assessee to prove that there was no concealment of income of true particulars. But the Assessee has failed to produce any satisfactory explanation, therefore, he levied the penalty of ₹ 1,59,500/- and directed the AO to compute the penalty on the amount of ₹ 1,59,500/- @100% and completed the assessment and accordingly, levied the penalty of ₹ 1,59,500/- and directed the AO to compute the penalty on the amount of ₹ 1,59,500/- @100% u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. Now the Assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid Penalty order dated 20.3.2013 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and pleaded that there was change o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al. We are in agreement with the contention of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee that in the present case there was a change of opinion and no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars on the part of the Assessee. Therefore, we find force in the contention of the assessor's counsel that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Aggarwal Pipe Co. (240 ITR 880) [Del.] wherein the Hon'ble Court has held as under:- Held, dismissing the application for reference, that the Tribunal had found that the assessee had furnished confirmations from the cash creditors and it was only when the Assessing Officer wanted him to produc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be inaccurate nor could be viewed as the concealment of income on its part. It was up to the authorities to accept its claim in the return or not. Merely, because the Assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself would not, in our opinion, attract the penalty u/sec. 271(1)(c). If we accept the contention of the Revenue then in case of every return where the claim made is not accepted by the Assessing Officer for any reason, the Assessee will invite penalty u/sec. 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature . 8. In the background of the aforesaid discussions and precedents, we are of the considered view that the Assessee has not furnished in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
