TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1927X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the similar circumstances in the assessment order at page No.6 the ld Assessing Officer has mentioned both the limbs and in the penalty order Assessing Officer has levied penalty on both the limbs. Therefore, in view of the above judicial precedents, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the order of the ld CIT(A) in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Assessing Officer - Decided against revenue. - ITA No. 1029/Del/2012 - - - Dated:- 4-9-2017 - SHRI H.S.SIDHU AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, JJ. Appellant by : Shri Naveen Chandr, CIT DR Respondent by: Shri PK Mishra, CA ORDER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of the ld CIT(A)-XXII, New Delhi dated 03.10.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition on account of bogus liabilities was made on suspicion, particularly when the assessee had failed to establish genuineness of such liabilities in his appeals in quantum right upto Hon'ble Supreme court and thus deletion of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) by Ld. CIT(A) was not justified. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee did not offer any explanation during penalty proceedings to prove the genuineness of cash amounting to ₹ 70,000/- deposited by the assessee in his bank account on 13.11.1999, which was added to his income u/s 69 and upheld by Ld. CIT(A) / Hon'ble ITAT and thus deletion of penalty u/ s 271(l)(c) on this issue by Ld. CIT(A) was not justified. 4. The ld DR relied upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fied that the assessee has deliberately concealed his income and furnished in accurate particulars of his in respect of all the additions being made. Hence penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are being initiated separately in respect of these additions (page 6 of the quantum order) 5. Both the additions have been sustained and the Id. AO has imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to ₹ 12,28,080/- vide order passed u/s 271(1)(c) dated 25.05.2010 (APB-91) recording his satisfaction as under: .The addition on account of bogus liabilities of ₹ 39,96,951/- and on account of unaccounted bank entries to the extent of ₹ 70,000/- were made after they were found to be bogus. The additions were duly considered by the Ld CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Karnataka) Tristar Intech (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2015) 43 ITR (Trib) 279 (ITAT[Del]) 4. On the merits of the case the penalty was otherwise also not justified in view of the following facts: With respect to addition of ₹ 39,96,951/- : a) The write off of unclaimed creditors of ₹ 39,96,951/- was disclosed and offered as income in the original return of income for A.Y. 2003-04 filed before the date of search hence there cannot be any concealment on the part of the assessee in respect of the same. The unclai med creditors were outstanding since 1982-83 (page 2 of the assessment order) b) The Id. AO has only shifted this income to A.Y. 2000-01 (reducing the same from A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s well as concealment of income. For this the ld AR has placed strong reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. SSA s Emerald Meadows 73 Taxmann.com 248. 7. We fully agree with the arguments of the ld AR that there is no specific charge levied by the ld AO at the time of initiation and even also at the time of levying of penalty, therefore, the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. SAS s Emerald Meadows (supra) wherein, the order of Hon ble Karnataka High Court reported at 73 Taxmaan.com 241 (Karnataka) was upheld relying on the decision of division bench of Karnataka High Court in case of Cit Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
