TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 758X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty is levied by HPCL for non-fulfillment of some dealership condition falls within the purview of business expenditure, hence the same is allowable expenditure u/s 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee has also placed reliance in this regard in the case of Gold Crest Capital Markets Limited vs. ITO, (2009 (1) TMI 553 - ITAT, MUMBAI) wherein the Mumbai Tribunal has decided that fine or penalty imposed by NSE to its members is regulated by their in house laws and could not be termed as violation of statutory laws and hence, cannot be disallowed. Respectfully following the above findings of Mumbai, I.T.A.T., we delete the levy of penalty - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.(SS)A.Nos.282 to 284/Ind/2014 - - - Dated:- 1-8-2016 - SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri K.C.Agrawal, CA For The Respondent : Shri Rajeev Varshaney, CIT DR ORDER PER O.P. MEENA, ACCOUTANT MEMEBR. These three appeals are filed by the assessee against the consolidated order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Indore [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] dated 20.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... response to which the returns of income were filed and cases were selected under scrutiny by issuing statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. The assessee derives income from rental income, income from proprietory-ship concern M/s. Super Diesels and share income from two partnership firms, namely, M/s. Manish Construction, M/s. Ishan Constructions and M/s.Surya Builders interest income from deposits with Bank and others. Survey u/s 133A was also carried out simultaneously alognwith search at the business premises of the assessee group, wherein some FDRs were found of which photocopies were impounded from the business premises of M/s. Alankar Enterprises and Saakar Infrastructure Private Limited vide page nos. 70 to 76 of BS-4. The findings of AO with regard to such FDRs with reference to relevant assessment year is reproduced as under :- A.Y. 2001-02 : Sr. Name of holder Date Amount 1. Pitambar Wadhwani Miss Charu 02-02.2001 18,453/- 2. Pitambar Wadhwani Begraj Wadhwani 02-02.2001 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffairs, therefore, this amount of ₹ 44,190 / - is hereby added u/s 68. Above mentioned FDRs are claimed to have been made out of undisclosed income of the assessee, which has been accounted for in his regular books of accounts. Keeping in view these facts an amount of interest @120/0 for six month = ₹ 6.052/- is added in the income of the assessee. Similarly an amount of ₹ 7,517/- ₹ 2.480/- (as shown in statement of affairs) = ₹ 5,037/- @ 12% on FDRs purchased during the AY 2001-02. Total addition on this account is ₹ 13,569/-. Above mentioned FDRs are claimed to have been made out of undisclosed income of the assessee, which has not been accounted for in his regular books of account. Keeping in view these facts an amount of interest @120/0 for two months = ₹ 7,518/- less ₹ 2,299/-(shown in Statement of affairs) = ₹ 5,219 / - is added in the income of the assessee. Total addition in this head is ₹ 49,409/-. As is evident from the above table of FDRs that FDRs totaling to Rs.l,00,867/- are made during the AY 2002-03. Therefore this amount of Rs.l,00,867/- is added to the income of the assessee. This additi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amily members and as found during the course of survey were not matching. As the numbers as well amount mentioned in the FDRs were different, nor the assessee was able to get verified the same with documentary evidence during the course of appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A). 7. Before us also, the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee could not controvert the findings recorded by the lower authorities. It is also seen from the submission of the assessee that the name of the assessee is also appearing as second and third beneficiaries in respect of these FDRs. The assessee is only active and effective member of his family. In view of these facts and circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the lower authorities. Hence, the appeals of the assessee for all the three assessment years on this ground is rejected. 8. Ground no.2 for assessment year 2003-04 relates to maintaining the disallowance of levy of penalty of ₹ 5,000/-, which was levied by the Principal, M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited for violation of their norms. 9. We have considered the facts and materials available on record. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has confi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
