TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 557X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions to his income, it does not follow that the amount agreed to be added was concealed income. Also further find that addition in this case was made on protected assessment/addition on estimated basis which is against the law laid down in the case of M/s Bahilal Manilal Patel vs. CIT (2014 (10) TMI 621 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT). Also further find that section 271(1)(c) postulates imposition of penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. On the facts and circumstances of this case the assessee’s conduct cannot be said to be contumacious so as to warrant levy of penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee - I.T.A. No. 4007/Del/2016 - - - Dated:- 26-12-2016 - Shri H. S. Sidhu, Judicial Member Assessee by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earing. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the return of income was filed on 07.12.2011 disclosing a total income of ₹ 2,10,000/-. The declared source of income was Other Sources. During scrutiny assessment proceedings, the AO enquired into the sources of cash deposited in the bank a/c mounting to ₹ 1,02,11,753/- during the relevant previous year. The assessee filed a revised return before the AO on 19.11.2013, claiming that the cash deposits were out of turnover of ₹ 1,08,18,106/- from her proprietary business of trading in cloth/grey fabric. An audited balance sheet was submitted alongwith it. The AO held that the revised return could only have been filed before the expiry of one year from the end of the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtment that the asseessee admitted to carrying on a proprietary business of trading in cloth. It was held that the assessee had concealed income to the tune of ₹ 8,11,175/-. After considering the gravity of the concealment, the maximum penalty was levied at 300% of the tax sought to be evaded, which worked out to ₹ 4,80,045/- vide his order dated 30.9.2015. 3. Against the above Penalty Order dated 30.9.2015 passed by the Assessing Officer, assessee appealed before the Ld. First Appellate Authority, who vide impugned order dated 26.10.2016 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Against the above order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 26.10.2016, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. Counsel of the assessee in order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties. I find that it is well settled law that the assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are separate and distinct as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Anatharam Veerasinghaiah Co. vs. CIT 123 ITR 457. I agree with the contention of the assessee s counsel that merely because an addition has not been contested, it cannot be presumed that the addition represents concealed income and placed the reliance of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sir Shadilal Sugar General Mills Ltd. Reported at 168 ITR 705 that from the assessee agreeing to additions to his income, it does not follow that the amount agreed to be added was concealed income. I further find that addition in this case was made o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
