TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 289X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inely advance the money for purchase of goods but due any reasons they have taken their money back which they have advanced earlier lack of their addresses it is very difficult to either present them or get their confirmations. As regard the second addition was made due to cash payment of ₹ 35,000/- it cannot be treated as concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars because the payment was made to M/s Shakurnbhary Straw Products as accepted in assessment order which is also supported by voucher. In this regard the only default was contravention of the provision of section 40A(3). Since there was no concealment of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars therefore penalty cannot be imposed on this point. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n law and on facts in confirming the action of AO in levying penalty of ₹ 90,000/- and that too without assuming jurisdiction as per law and without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without considering the submission of assessee and latest position of law in this regard and the impugned penalty order being illegal and void ab-initio. II) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of AO in passing the impugned penalty order being contrary to law as the assessment order framed under section 143(3) dated 6.3.2013 was also illegal, beyond jurisdiction and void ab-initio. III) That having regard to the facts and circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee has declared income from furniture shop, income from property dealing and income from printing of newspaper business in the name and style of Uttaranchal Deep Publications . In addition to that the assessee has also shown his income from agricultural activities of ₹ 1,20,000/-. On examination of book of accounts of M/s Saket Furniture Decorator it was discovered that the assessee made cash transactions with 08 parties mentioned in the penalty order. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was required to explain the nature as well as to establish the genuineness of these transactions claimed to be entered with different persons. Further, the assessee was specifically asked to ascertain the creditworthines ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taining pages 1 to 12 having the copy of assessment order dated 6.3.2013 passed in assessee s own case u/s. 143(3) during quantum proceedings; copy of notice u/s. 271(1) dated 6.3.2013 issued alongwith the said order; copy of assessee s reply dated 7.9.2013 filed to AO during the course of penalty proceedings; copy of written submissions dated 26.8.2014 filed before Ld. CIT(A) and copy of further submissions dated 6.1.2015 filed before Ld. CIT(A). He further stated that Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the action of AO in levying penalty of ₹ 90,000/- and that too without assuming jurisdiction as per law and without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without considering the submission of assessee and latest posit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 35000.00 and iii) Addition of provision of salary payable of ₹ 20000/- alleging that fake provision were made. We find that with regard to addition of ₹ 1,20,000/- the assessee had fully explained the entries as mentioned in its books because all the persons and transaction are genuine from whom amount was accepted as loan for just financial assistance and on being comfortable all transactions of loans were returned back. Confirmation of all persons were filed before the lower authorities. We note that at the time of assessment the assessee had given a consent to add the loans in their income to avoid litigation and save valuable time but which does not mean that the amount entered in the books in name of different persons are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich was not considered. 7.1 In view of above, there was no concealment of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars on the above points because mere non-acceptance of explanation offered cannot form a basis for the satisfaction of assessing authority to the effect that the assessee has concealed particulars of his income. In this regard, we draw support from the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Reliance Petro products Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 3 taxmann.com 47 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that 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 attract the penalty under section 271 (1)( c). We furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
