9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1401X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the explanation offered by the appellant and refrained from confirming the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the Appellant has no information about the SB Account of her husbandsince the said account was operated by her husband and son. Thus, to buy piece with department the Appellant has offered the same and paid the taxes. Accordingly, penalty confirmed is liable to be cancelled. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances, the learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the mere acceptance of the addition to buy piece was not adequate to justify the levy of penalty. 5. Without prejudice, the penalty confirmed by CIT(A) is excessive, arbitrary and unrea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment proceedings as well as in connection with the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c)of the I.T.Act, 1961, she has stated that she was not aware of the Savings Bank Account held by her husband at Canara Bank, Koppikar Road, Hubli. However, it is seen from the statement of account in respect of the Savings Bank Account No.6788, the Savings Bank Account has been operated during the financial year 2004-05 on several occasions even after the death of her husband. Hence, I conclude that Smt. N.S.Tilavalli, Legal heir of Late Shri. Sharanappa H Tilavalli was aware of the Savings Bank Account No. 6788 held at Canara Bank, Koppikar Road, Hubli. I, therefore, conclude that the assessee's case is a fit case for levy of penalty under section 271 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal is dismissed." 6. Now the assessee is before us. We may record that there is no representative on behalf of the assessee during the course of the proceedings before us and therefore we have no other option but to decide the appeal on the basis of the information available on record. The learned DR has submitted that the penalty is required to be confirmed as after the death of the assessee, the family members of the assessee were operating the bank account maintained by late husband of the assessee and were depositing the amount in the account of deceased . The learned DR has submitted that the amount was deposited by the son after the death of the husband of the present appellant. Further learned DR relies upon the orders passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deposit was made by the legal heirs of the deceased and more particularly the assessee before us. Besides the above, had the assessee was alive, then the assessee (late husband) would have given details of the income or the status of the amount deposited in the account i.e., whether the amount deposited was a loan, gift or tax exempted deposits, etc. Furthermore, if we accept the case of the learned DR for the revenue that the amount was deposited by the son of the appellant before us, then in our view the explanation should have been sought from the son and if the income belongs to him, then the income should be assessed in the hands of the son and not in the hands of husband or the wife of the deceased. Since there was no willful and del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
