TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 1126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) in confirming the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on account of disallowance made u/s.69C - Decided against assessee. Penalty levied on disallowance made u/s.68 - HELD THAT:- We find no cogent evidences before us as rightly pointed by the Ld. DR supporting the contentions of assessee and showing the addition has been deleted in the quantum proceedings. Therefore, we find no infirmity with the findings of the CIT(A) in confirming the penalty imposed u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act involving the disallowance made u/s.68 - Decided against assessee. Penalty imposed on disallowance made u/s.40(a)(ia) - violation of deduction of TDS on the payment made on account of TDR/Land cost - HELD THAT:- AO initiated p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeals above are similar basing on the identical facts. Therefore, with the consent of the Ld. DR we proceed to hear the appeal together and pass consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Let us first take up the appeal in ITA No.1966/PUN/2017 for the assessment year 2004-05. ITA No.1966/PUN/2017 A.Y.2004-05 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm and engaged in the business of Promoters and Builders. Search action was conducted in the case of Bharat Jain Group of cases on 10.08.2006 during which 8 loose paper bundles including 7 diaries were seized from the resident of Bharat Babulal Jain. The said Bharat Jain admitted that these diaries were written in his own hand writing and conta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. But however, the contention was raised before the CIT(A) in the penalty proceedings that there was no dispute with respect to the genuineness of the expenses found in the diaries and could not be said that the expenses were false or non genuine. Further, it was contended that all the entries in the diaries had been verified by the Special Auditors and Assessing Officer. Mere disallowance u/s.40(A) of the Act does not attract the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. For the proposition made above, the assessee placed reliance on various case laws before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) in the penalty proceedings but however, no such consideration was given to the said proposition by the CIT(A). We note that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. Therefore, we completely agree with the reasons recorded by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) in his order. Thus, Ground No.2 raised in appeal by the assessee is dismissed. 11. Ground No.3 raised in question is with regard to the confirmation of penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of disallowance made u/s.68 of the Act. 12. We note that the Assessing Officer in his order prepared a chart of reference wherein he held unexplained cash credits were added u/s.68 of the Act. It was contended before the CIT(A) in penalty proceedings, these entries are outside the books of accounts which had been verified by the Special Auditors. The Special Auditors confirmed the entries are outside the books of accounts and no penalty u/s.271(1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... including decision in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petro products Pvt. Ltd. reported in 322 ITR 158. We note that the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings for failure to deduct TDS which itself clearly shows that the there were details regarding the payment involving TDR/land cost in the assessment proceedings which does not any way constitute furnishing of inaccurate particulars nor concealment of income. A mere disallowance as rightly contended by the assessee before the CIT(A) does not attract imposition of penalty. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the penalty imposed against disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act is deleted. Thus, Ground No.4 raised in appeal by the assessee is allowed. 16. In the result, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.1 raised in ITA No.1966/PUN/2017. Since we have taken a decision in allowing this ground in ITA No.1966/PUN/2017, the same decision is equally applicable to Ground No.1 in this appeal. Thus, Ground No.1 raised in appeal by the assessee is allowed. 22. Ground No.2 raised in this appeal is identical and similar to Ground No.4 of ITA No.1966/PUN/2017. Since we have taken a decision in allowing this ground in ITA No.1966/PUN/2017, the same decision is equally applicable to Ground No.2 in this appeal. Thus, Ground No.2 raised in appeal by the assessee is allowed. 23. In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1968/PUN/2017 is allowed. 24. To sum up, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No.1966 1967/PUN/2017 are partly allowed an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
