9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 999X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of appeal in proper perspective. The submissions of appellant has not been brought out and considered in detailed manner. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the penalty r levied by the Assessing authority and failed to taken into consideration that Assessing Officer has not recorded the requisite satisfaction in the body of assessment order for levying penalty under sec 271(l) (c) of the act. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the Assessing authority having failed to. comply with the provisions of sec 271(1) (c) of the act with regard to initiation of penalty proceedings, the proceedings are vitiated and consequently the penalty order passed was invalid. 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that penalty proceedings art independent from that of the Assessment proceedings and ought to have considered submissions of appellant on merits of the mailer based on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not noting that the appellant had neither concealed any income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income to warra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice from the Tribunal on 17.11.2016, had remitted appeal fees on 22.11.2016, however, the same was communicated to Tribunal on 20.04.217. If the date of filing appeal is considered, there is no delay in filing the appeal and if the date of payment of appeal fee is considered, then there is a delay of 10 days in filing the appeal. He further submitted that, be that as it may, but fact remains that there is inadvertent error in not paying appeal fees before filing the appeal due to mistake of a person, who was handling papers, but there is no willful negligence on the part of the assessee not to file appeal within the time allowed under the Act. Therefore, considering the fact that the assessee has shown interest in filing appeal within the due date specified under the Act, marginal delay of ten days may be condoned in the interest of advancement of substantial justice . 4. The learned DR, on the other hand, fairly agreed that delay may be condoned in the interest of justice. 5. We have heard both the parties and considered petition filed by the assessee for condonation of delay along with reasons given for not filing appeal within due date specified under the Act . Admittedly, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed inaccurate particulars of income, in respect of additions made towards unproved liability, because, the assessee has furnished necessary evidences to prove liability and also persons, who received payment from the company has admitted the fact that they have rendered services in connection map drawing work and has also received payment in full. But, the Assessing Officer has disregarded all evidences filed by the assessee and has made additions only on the basis of field report received from Inspector of Income Tax, where he has stated that persons have stated that they do not have any outstanding as on 31.3.2012. Similarly, in respect of unsecured loan received from Mr.Karur Ramasamy, the assessee has filed confirmation from parties, but the Assessing Officer has made addition only on the ground that no proper explanation was furnished to explain unsecured loan shown in the name of Mr.Karur Ramasamy. Therefore, when the assessee has furnished necessary evidences in respect of certain payments, merely for the reason that said payment has not been substantiated to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, the same cannot be considered as willful attempt made for concealment of p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of income falling within the ambit of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, accordingly, rejected arguments taken by the assessee and confirmed penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved by the learned CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 10. The learned AR for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact in light of provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act before confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer in respect of additions towards unproved liabilities and unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act, because any claim of expenditure which was not substantiated before the Assessing Officer cannot automatically lead to conclusion that assessee has concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The learned AR further submitted that the assessee has filed all evidences in respect of unproved liability towards map drawing charges and further parties to whom payment was made were also confirmed receipt of payment, but only point which was considered by the Assessing Officer is statement of parties regarding date of payment of liability, otherwise all the parties have accepted the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of authorities below along with case laws cited by the learned counsel for the assessee. The Assessing Officer has levied penalty in respect of two additions i.e, i)unproved liability in respect of map drawing charges, & ii) unexplained cash credit in respect of unsecured loan taken from Mr. Karur Ramasamy u/s.68 of the Act. As regards unproved liability, the only reason given by the Assessing Officer to make addition is that recipient of payment has stated that there is no outstanding as on 31.3.2012, except this, the Assessing Officer has not doubted the fact of rendering services by the parties and payment received against such services. Under these facts, on examining the reasons given by the Assessing Officer for levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, we find that the reasons given for levy of penalty is not on sound footing, because the sole basis for making addition is report of Inspector of income tax, which was taken during the course of assessment proceedings, which was in the year 2015, whereas, payment against services has been made in the year 2011 and 2012. Therefore, obviously it is very difficult for the recipient of payment to confirm exact date of receipt of mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
