TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1400X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt the facts by taking grounds which are devoid of facts and merit. There is no other material before us to contradict the factual finding given by the CIT(A) while upholding the penalty levied by the AO u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. In our opinion the order passed by the CIT(A) confirming the penalty levied by the AO u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is a reasoned one and does not call for any interference from our side. - Decided against assessee. - ITA Nos.1302 to 1307/PN/2014 - - - Dated:- 15-1-2016 - SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM For The Appellant : None For The Respondent : Shri Subhash K.R. ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : ITA Nos. 1302, 1304 and 1306/PN/2014 filed by the assessee are directed against the common order dated 10-04-2014 of the CIT(A)-I, Nashik relating to Assessment Years 2002-03 to 2004-05 respectively. ITA Nos. 1303, 1305 and 1307/PN/2014 filed by the assessee are directed against the common order dated 10-04-2014 of the CIT(A)-I, Nashik relating to Assessment Years 2002-03 to 2004-05 respectively wherein the assessee has challenged the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri Soni was that the cash loan was normally advanced for 90 days, after deducting the interest amount (varying from 1.5% to 2% p.m.) and the brokerage amount (between 0.25% to 0.50% p.m.). Thus for a loan of Rs.l lakh, the borrower received only ₹ 94,750/- (after deducting interest of ₹ 4,500/- @ 1.5% p.m. for 3 months and brokerage of ₹ 750/- @ 0.25% p.m. for three months). At the time of borrowing the cash loans, the borrowers handed over the blank cheque (of the full amount borrowed) and promissory note. Another promissory note (for 1% of the amount borrowed) was also obtained from the borrower, which was to keep track of the interest payment on due dates by the borrower. 5. As per the incriminating seized documents, books of account relating to money lending business, finance brokerage, advance of cash loans, etc. the assessee Shri Pradip Kisanlal Boob, Nashik was also found to be one of the borrowers of Shri Shriram H. Soni and found to have availed loan transaction through Shri Soni (Rs.10,00,000/- advanced on 30-06-2001). The Assessing Officer after detailed scrutiny made addition of ₹ 1,57,500/- (Rs.1,35,000/- on account of interest and ₹ 22 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of merit. The same is rejected. The appellant has cited many judgements wherein notice u/s 153C was issued after the gap of 31 months or 6 years etc. In the present case, the notice u/s 153C was issued within a reasonable time after the completion of assessment of Mr. Soni u/s 153A. I find that the appellant's arguments are somewhat misplaced as far as provisions of section 153C of the Act are concerned. The appellant has also stated that the cheques were issued by the firm and not the individual. Hence no action in the case of the appellant was called for. As already stated above, cheques were issued by M/s K.R. Boob Sons in which the appellant was a partner for the A.Ys. 2002-03 to 2004-05 i.e. the A.Ys. in appeal. When the notice u /s 153C was issued the appellant had become the proprietor of M/s K.R. Boob and sons which is in the business of running of petrol pump. The appellant has also stated that there are number of Boobs in Nashik and why the notice was issued to Shri P. K. Boob only. The appellant in its submission had already accepted that the cheques were issued by M/s K.R. Boob Sons in which the appellant was a partner during the A.Ys. 2002-03 to 2004-05 (un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollowing grounds : (1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the additions of ₹ 1,57,500/- made to the income of the appellant. (2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in giving a finding that the cheques and promissory notes signed by the firm of M/s K.R.Boob Sons, seized from Shri Shriram H. soni of Pune, were in the individual capacity of the appellant after the firm was dissolved and the appellant had become the proprietor thereof, when actually the firm was dissolved much later on 28/12/2003. (3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in giving a finding that when the notice uls 153C was issued for A. Y.2002-03 to the appellant individual on 29/05/2008, the appellant had become the proprietor of M/s. K.R.Boob Sons and also erred in overlooking the fact that alleged borrowing was in F.Y.2001- 02 when the firm of M/s K.R.Boob Sons was in existing and was not dissolved. (4) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in giving a finding t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e dismissed. Following similar reasonings the appeals filed by the assessee for A.Yrs. 2003-04 and 2004-05 are also dismissed. ITA Nos. 1303, 1305 and 1307/PN/2014 (A.Yrs. 2002-03 to 2004-05) : 10. The assessee in the grounds of appeal has challenged the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the penalty levied by the AO u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 amounting to ₹ 48,200/- for A.Y. 2002-03, ₹ 66,150/- for A.Y. 2003-04 and ₹ 69,300/- for A.Y. 2004-05. 11. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the AO made addition of ₹ 1,57,500/- during A.Y. 2002-03, ₹ 2,10,000/- for A.Y. 2003-04 and another ₹ 2,10,000/- for A.Y. 2004-05 as mentioned in the preceding paragraph No.5 of this order. Subsequently the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. After rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee the AO levied penalty of ₹ 48,200/- for A.Y. 2002-03, ₹ 66,150/- for A.Y. 2003-04 and ₹ 69,300/- for A.Y. 2004-05. 12. In appeal the Ld.CIT(A) after considering various submissions made by the assessee before him confirmed the penalty levied by the AO by observing as under : 6. I have carefu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Shriram Hiralal Soni. The appellant has questioned the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in his hands stating that he had signed the cheques as a partner of the firm and did not have any transaction in his individual capacity. Further, the appellant has stated that the transactions in question did not materialize. All these issues have been discussed in detail in the appellate order No.NSK/CIT(A)-l/572 to 574/2013-14 dated 10/04/2014 for A.Ys. 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05. The appellant has tried to mis-represent the facts by taking grounds which are devoid of facts and merit. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant had concealed its particulars of income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income and the AO was justified in levying penalties u/s.271(1)(c) amounting to ₹ 48,200/-, ₹ 66,150/- and ₹ 69,300/- for A.Ys. 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 respectively. The same are confirmed. 13. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us. 14. We have heard the Ld. Departmental Representative and perused the material available on record. We find the Ld.CIT(A) while confirming the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
