TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 530X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly fall within the ambit of concealment is not sufficient. CIT(A) also not considered the submissions of the Assessee during the appellate proceedings. Therefore, it will be appropriate to remand back this issue of unsecured loan, receipt of cash and insurance commission to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding it with the reasoned order. - Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. - ITA No. 156/DEL/2017, ITA No. 157/DEL/2017 - - - Dated:- 19-3-2020 - Ms Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member, And Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Goyal, I.T.P For the Respondent : Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM These two appeals are filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... benefit to The Revenue of uncertainties caused by the circumstances. Hence, penalty is not leviable. 3. The second addition confirmed by The Hon ble CIT (A) was the addition of disallowance of an unsecured loan received by the assessee, the lender of which could not be produced for recording of his statement due to practical hardship of being shifting of his residence to an unknown address. The said addition was confirmed in appeal not due to detection of any type of concealment of income, but due to circumstances being out of control of the assessee, as it was not in the hands of the assessee to trace the address of said person. Therefore, keeping in view the fact that the said addition has not been confirmed due to any concealment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome) is allowable, as gross commission doesn t exceed ₹ 60000/-. As the said addition is based on estimation only, not on certain basis and addition made on estimation basis doesn t tantamount to concealment of income. Hence, no penalty is leviable on this addition. 5. The fourth and last addition confirmed by The Honourable CIT (A) was the addition of household expenses considering it to be inadequate. The said addition was made by The Assessing Officer estimating the household expenses of the assessee to be of ₹ 100000/-, while it was reduced by The Hon ble CIT (A) estimating the said expenses to be of ₹ 78000/-. This addition was made and confirmed on estimation basis only and any addition made only on the estimati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to providing benefit to The Revenue of uncertainties caused by the circumstances. Hence, penalty is not leviable. 3. The second addition confirmed by The Hon ble CIT (A) was the addition of disallowance of an unsecured loan received by the assessee, the lender of which could not be produced for recording of his statement due to practical hardship of being shifting of his residence to an unknown address. The said addition was confirmed in appeal not due to detection of any type of concealment of income, but due to circumstances being out of control of the assessee, as it was not in the hands of the assessee to trace the address of said person. Therefore, keeping in view the fact that the said addition has not been confirmed due to any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... timation only, not on certain basis and addition made on estimation basis doesn t tantamount to concealment of income. Hence, no penalty is leviable on this addition. 3. Issues in both the appeals are identical, therefore, we are taking brief facts of Assessment Year 2010-11. Return declaring income of ₹ 1,53,080/- was filed on 21.07.2011 which was processed u/s 143(1) of I.T. Act, 1961. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of Income Tax Act,1961 and assessment was framed u/s 143(3)/147 of I.T. Act,1961 vide order dated 24.01.2013 at income of ₹ 9,46,320/- after making certain additions to the taxable income of the assessee. The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT (A) against the assessment orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies for recording of their statements. The Ld. AR further submitted that disallowance of cash receipts from some of the customers and disallowance of receipts of unsecured loans from the lenders and customers in bank account through cheques merely for the reason of non possibility of presence of such customers of lenders before the Assessing Officer for recording of their statement does not tantamount to willful furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of particulars of income within the meaning of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in case of Shri Ajay Loknath Lohia Vs. ITO (ITA No. 2998/Mum/2017 order dated 5/10/2018). 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
