TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order passed by the learned Tribunal. Tribunal has already reduced the penalty to the minimum level of 100% of tax on such concealed income. It cannot be said that merely because the assessee has agreed to a particular addition to be made in his declared income, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be imposed nor there is any merit in the proposition that since the penalty was not imposed for the cash entry in the name of daughter for which also the assessee agreed for the said addition, no such penalty could be imposed for the credit in the name of the son Mr.Anandha Kumar Jagannathan and in the name of the third party Mr.Rueban Robert Ponnia. No substantial question of law arising in the present appeal filed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... independently establish that the loans received were the appellant firm's income? 2.The relevant findings of the learned Tribunal are quoted below for ready reference: The facts have been discussed by the AO in detail at pages 3 to 6 of the assessment order dated 28.02.2007. The copies of account of the two creditors as appearing in the books of account of the assessee have been reproduced by the AO in the assessment order. These are as under: Shri Rueben Robert Ponnia (LF No.18): Date Particulars Dr. Amount Cr. Amount 27 May By State Bank of India Ch.No.215000-10000, 639349-100000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3,00,000 8.The enquiries conducted by the AO revealed that the two amounts of ₹ 3,00,000 each shown in the names of Shri Rueben Robert Ponnia and Shri Ananda Kumar Jagannathan came from the savings bank account of Shri R.Jaganathan, the Managing Partner of the assessee-firm. 8.1.The AO examined the bank pass book of Shri Rueben Robert Ponnia and found that the balance in this account never exceeded ₹ 15,000. It was also found that Shri Rueben Robert Ponnia owned 5 acres of dry land and that he did not carry out any agricultural operation during the past three years. The enquiries conducted by the AO showed that Shri Rueben Robert Ponnia did not have the creditworth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, when the assessee offered for taxation genuine loans to avoid protracted litigation? (b)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in reversing the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) cancelling the penalty after due consideration of the facts and judicial decisions? 4.Learned counsel for the appellant-assessee, relying upon the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal, in (2000) 241 ITR 124 (M.P.), submitted that merely because the assessee agreed to the addition of cash credits in the name of two persons, viz. Mr.Rueban Robert Ponnia and Mr.Ananda K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nging to the son and daughter of the senior partner was routed through the third party Mr.Rueban Robert Ponnia which could not be proved to be genuine cash credits and therefore, imposition of penalty to the minimum extent by 100% has to be upheld and no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. 6.Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present case. The matter of explanation furnished by the assessee firm, being accepted by the learned Tribunal or not, is a fact finding exercise and unless the findings of the Tribunal can be held to be perverse, in our opinion, no substantial question of law arises. We do not find any such perversity in the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
