2016 (6) TMI 109

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a finding that the assessee had not concealed the income, and the Assessing Officer had merely disbelieved his version. The Tribunal is a final court on fact and, save a perverse finding or a finding based on no evidence, no substantial question of law can be said to have arisen necessitating interference under Section 260-A of the Act. Both the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal have assigned reasons for arriving at the satisfaction that there was no concealment of income on the part of the assessee and, based on such findings, held that no penalty could be levied on the additions made - Decided against revenue - I.T.T.A.No.236 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 4-11-2015 - SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND SRI M.SATYANARAYANA MU .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s and source for further investment of ₹ 25,00,000/- and imposed penalty of ₹ 47,96,550/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee questioned the penalty order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), both on the ground of limitation and with respect to the additions. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that there was no infirmity in the order of the Assessing Officer with regards limitation. On the issue of addition of ₹ 1,17,50,000/-, the assessee contended that the contributions were received from seven members, who had come together, and had invested through the assessee; a strong reason, to disbelieve such contributions, was on account of the fact that the entire transactions were in cash, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... addition of ₹ 25,00,000/-, the Commissioner of Income tax held that penalty was leviable thereon representing the unexplained investments, where concealment was established by the facts of the case. The CIT (A) held that penalty was not leviable on the addition of ₹ 1,17,50,000/- which also represented explained investment in the hands of the assessee, since no concealment was shown to have been established, and the submission of the assessee was merely disbelieved. The appeal was partly allowed. In appeal by the Revenue, the Tribunal held that the additions made in the quantum proceedings were different from penalty proceedings; merely by disbelieving the explanation of the assessee, the Revenue could not come to the conclu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X