TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 542X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thus, the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in case of SSA s Emerald Meadows (Supra) is applicable in present case. Besides this it can be seen from the Assessment Order that the assessee explained the sources of cash receipts during the course of search action under Section 132 which was recorded in statement under Section 132(4) of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee substantiated the manner in which the said income was derived through confirmations, bank statements, tax credit statements, third party ledger confirmations. So per se, Section 271AAA cannot be invoked in the present case. Thus, order under Section 271AAA related to penalty does not survive. Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. - I.T.A. No.2219/Ahd/2018 And I.T.A. Nos. 215 to 218/Ahd/2019 - - - Dated:- 9-11-2022 - Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri Ravish Bhatt, C.A. For the Respondent : Shri Ravindra, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE - JM: This bunch of appeals filed by the assessee are filed against the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Ahmedabad on different dates for different Assessment Years. 2. The grounds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... medabad passed assessment order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act dated 18.03.2013 making an addition of Rs. 1,60,000/- which was challenged by the assessee before the CIT(A) to delete all the additions made by the Assessing Officer and restore the assessed income to Rs. 5,95,330/- as offered by the assessee under Section 153A of the Act. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and issued a show-cause notice dated 18.03.2017 and 18.01.2017. The assessee made a detailed submission on 30.01.2017. The Assessing Officer after taking cognizance of the submissions imposed a penalty under Section 271(1(c) of the Act at Rs. 64,486/- thereby observing that there is an element of concealment of income. 5. Being aggrieved by the penalty order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the very basis of the quantum has been deleted by the CIT(A) upon which the penalty has been imposed by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the penalty does not survive and the same may be deleted. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the Assessing Officer did not cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 271(1)(c) of the Act while the element of mens rea is missing which is sin-qua none in the case of any penalty proceedings. 3. Because the Hon ble CIT(A) and the Ld AO have erred in law and on facts in imposing penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act in absence of any findings of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. 10. The additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No. 215/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2008-09 are read as under: 4. Because the impugned judgment and order is passed in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice as various submissions specifically raised by The Appellant have not at all been dealt with in the impugned judgment and order. 5. Because the impugned judgment and order is vitiated as having been passed placing reverse burden of proof upon The Appellant absent any primary evidence to establish that The Appellant had concealed the income or had furnished inaccurate particulars. 6. Because the entire penalty proceedings beginning with the show cause notice are vitiated for violation of The Principles of Natural Justices as the SCN is a Performa show cause notice which doesn t even state the grounds to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice dated 05.02.2017. The Assessing Officer has made the original additions as unaccounted deposits rejecting the explanation offered by the assessee and the source of such cash receipts. The Ld. A.R. submitted that all the said additions were towards alleged unexplained cash receipts on which assessee furnished her explanation with substantial prerogative evidence, but the Assessing Officer do not find the same sufficient and treated the cash receipts for unexplained sources. In so far as the business income offered under Section 44AD was concerned the Ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of Chandigarh Tribunal in case of Nand Lal Popli vs. DCIT (2016) 71 taxmann.com 246 (Chandigardh-Trib.). The Ld. A.R. submitted that it is the onus on the Revenue to establish lack of bona fide and the assessee is not responsible to establish if his explanations are bona fide. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the assessee has explained the sources of cash receipts during the course of search action under Section 132 which was recorded in the statement under Section 132(4) of the Act. The assessee furnished her bank account evidence of withdrawal cash from her account and the same cannot be tre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
