TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1616X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... greed for the said addition and, therefore, we hereby uphold the order of the CIT(A) - Decided against assessee. Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - voluntary disclosure by assessee - Held that:- When the assessee is not able to furnish the details about the difference in cash in hand and bank balance, to buy peace of mind, he agreed for the addition of ₹ 32,00,000/-. In view of the accepted addition voluntarily, it neither amounts to concealing the income nor furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. When the AO asked the assessee to show the source of bank deposits, the assessee failed to substantiate the same and agreed for the addition. The case of the assessee is not a fit a case to attract the provisions of section 271(1)(c) an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... standing balance as on 31-03-2010 was ₹ 32,62,548. Thus the total outstanding bank balances as on 31-03-2010 were of ₹ 32,52,691. But the assessee had shown 'Cash in Bank' in his balance sheet of ₹ 70,840 only. Therefore, the AO opined that the difference amount of 31,91,851 was not disclosed in his return of income for the AY 2010-11 and hence, a letter dated 14- 12-2012 was served on the assessee on 19-12-2012 to show cause why the difference amount of ₹ 31,91,851 should not be treated as unexplained income/credits under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2.2 In reply, the assessee has submitted a letter on 20-12-2012 explaining the reasons for the discrepancy that he had issued four cheques amounti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that from the balance sheet filed by the assessee that there was a difference in the cash in bank and bank balances. When AO asked the assessee to substantiate his claim by way of documentary evidence, the Assessee failed to do so and requested the AO to treat the difference amount as addition. Hence, the AO made the addition and the CIT(A) confirmed the same. Before the confirming the addition, the CIT(A) after considering the written submissions of the assessee, called for a remand report from the AO. In the remand report also, the AO categorically stated that the assessee agreed for the addition as he was unable to submit confirmation letters from the creditors. The CIT(A) after considering the remand report as well as considering the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition) to establish that the appellant has in fact concealed particulars of his income nor disproved the genuineness of the four trade creditors referred above. Hence, appellant submits that the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) is not sustainable in law. As regards the A.O.'s findings in the Penalty Order dt. 28.06.2013 regarding nonattendance to hearings posted on 18.02.2013 and on 10.06.2013 and non filing of any reply to the notices posting above hearings, the appellant submits that he in fact attended before the A.O. from time to time between February 2013 to June 2013 and requested him to drop penalty proceedings initiated against him, though he doesn't remember the dates of meeting the A.O. Some of the relevant facts are as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me technical errors/deficiencies in such letters but intention is to request the A.O. to drop the penalty proceedings u/s271 (I)(c). In view of the above facts, the assessee submits that he has been consistently pursuing the authorities to drop the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act. 12. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the CIT(A) confirmed the penalty levied by the AO by observing as under: 6.1 The issue involved here is the detection of unaccounted compensating payments made by the appellant to its trade creditors and confronted with this situation, the appellant surrendered voluntarily the income of ₹ 31,91,851/- vide his letter dated 26.12.2012, which is reproduced (translated) as below: th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
