TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1547X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not lead to concealment. At the most addition deserves to be sustained as has been already confirmed by this Tribunal. In our view alleged addition forms part of records and therefore there cannot be any concealment as has been alleged by authorities below. We are therefore inclined to delete penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA Nos. 13, 14 & 15/Del/2015 - - - Dated:- 27-11-2018 - Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member And Smt Beena A Pillai, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Sh. Dharender Kumar, C.A. For the Revenue : Sh. Surender Pal, Sr.D.R. ORDER PER BENCH Present penalty appeals have been filed by assessee against order dated 13/10/14 passed by Ld.CIT(A)-24, New Delhi for Assessment Years 1998-99 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time of hearing. ITA No. 14/Del/2015 1). That the order passed by Learned CIT(Appeals) confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1 )(c ) of the Act is biased, bad in law and in facts and circumstances of the case. 2). That the Learned CIT (Appeals), New Delhi has grossly erred in confirming the penalty levied u/s 271 (1) (c) amounting to ₹ 4,48,756/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee had neither furnished inaccurate particulars of his income nor concealed his income. 3). That the Learned CIT (Appeals), New Delhi has grossly erred in confirming the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer on deeming addition under section 68 of the Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13,55,858/-. 4). Without prejudice to the ground no. 2 3, the Learned CIT (Appeals) has grossly erred in confirming the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on an addition of ₹ 13,55,858/- for unexplained deposits in the bank accounts of the appellant whereas the actual amount deposited in the bank accounts was ₹ 13,29,608/-. 5). Without prejudice to ground no. 2 and 3 referred to above the Learned CIT (Appeals) has grossly erred in confirming the penalty levied on an addition of ₹ 13,55,858/- without appreciating that a sum of ₹ 47,850/- was deposited by the appellant from his returned income which was fully explained. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter and delete the above g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore us now. 5. Ld. Counsel filed Application for Admission of Additional Ground, in respect of all 3 Assessment Years wherein following legal issue has been challenged: 1) that the penalty proceedings had been initiated without any specific charge hence, the order passed under section 271 (1) (c ) of the Act is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. He placed reliance upon decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Power Company Ltd., vs. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383. 6. We have perused submissions advanced by both sides having regard to records placed before us. As issue raised in additional ground is legal in nature and leads to root of case challenging initiation of penalty proceedings, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case, Ld. Counsel submitted that total credits in bank account maintained by assessee with State Bank of Patiala amounts to ₹ 19,65,435/-. It has been submitted before authorities below that assessee filed following details forming part of amount alleged to be unexplained deposits by Ld.AO: Bank interest : ₹ 2,203/- Agricultural income : ₹ 2,38,000/- Advances received from various parties and transfers from family members : Rs.14,14,000/- out of taxable income of ₹ 1,21,430/- : ₹ 1,03,409/- Ld. Counsel submitted that ₹ 2,38,000/- in ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reliance upon orders passed by authorities below, and submitted that assessee failed to establish alleged agricultural income and also has not discharged its onus under section 68 of the Act, in respect of advances received from parties and family members. Ld.Sr.DR submitted that, it is under these circumstances that addition was confirmed by this Tribunal in quantum proceedings. 14. We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. 15. In our opinion assessee had filed details regarding deposits and sources from where deposits have been made in bank account. Merely because parties were not produced before Ld.AO to establish genuineness of transaction, cannot lead to concealment. At the mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
