TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... party. The assessee claimed that such additions were highly debatable, but to avoid the litigation, the same were accepted. Looking at the amount of the addition we are of the view that there was no deliberate act on the part of the assessee to conceal the particulars of income as pointed out by the authorities below, therefore we hold that there cannot be any penalty of the assessee in the given facts and circumstances. We find support and guidance from the judgment of the supreme court in case of Dilip N Shroff Vs. JCIT [ 2007 (5) TMI 198 - SUPREME COURT ] wherein as held as signifies a deliberate act or omission on the part of the assessee. Such deliberate act must be either for the purpose of concealment of income or furnishing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant s case is not appreciating the fact that the appellant has neither concealed particulars of his income not furnished its inaccurate particulars. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, later, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before hearing of the appeal. The solitary issue raised by the assessee is that the Ld.CIT (A) erred in confirming the penalty for ₹ 1,03,480/-under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee in the present case is an individual and engaged in the business of real estate consultancy. The assessee is also a director in a company namely Miles Motors private Ltd dealin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isagreed with the contention of the assessee and held that the assessee had suppressed his income by concealing the particulars of income. Accordingly the AO levied the penalty of ₹ 1,03,840/- being 100% of the amount of tax sought to be evaded. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the Ld. CIT(A). 6. The assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that the cash was deposited out of the opening balance of ₹ 1,43,776/- and the remaining amount was advanced returned by the staff of ₹ 1,52,804/-. The assessee in support of his claim also filed the copy of the cash book before the Ld. CIT(A). 6.1 The assessee also claimed that most of the additions to the extent of 97% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reduced by the Ld. CIT(A) to ₹ 2,96,580/-only. Thus it appears that the major additions were deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Moreover, we also note that the assessee was the man of means as evident from the deposit of cash in the bank account. Therefore we are of the view that there cannot be any penalty merely on the addition of such a small amount of cash deposit. We also find that the assessee in support of cash deposit has filed the cash book and there was no defect pointed out therein. 9.2 Insofar the amount returned from the staff, we note that the question of returning the advance arises only when the advances have been made. As such, none of the authorities below has doubted on the amount advanced by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
