Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2023 (2) TMI 695

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ) has asked for remand report for additional documents but AO chose to ignore. In this regard, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) which is a well-reasoned order and uphold the same. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Addition u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- Penalty made on the addition was already deleted by the ld. CIT (A) which we have also confirmed in our order herein above. As regards deletion of penalty on the balance amounts, we are in conformity with the reasoning of ld. CIT (A) that these additions do not warrant levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the touchstone of the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT . Hence, we uphold the order of ld. C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... al turnover of the assessee is Rs.3,53,89,998/-. Therefore, even if to believe that the total turnover/sale of the assessee was deposited in his Bank a/c, still the difference of Rs.2,76,79,355/- ( Rs.6,30,69,353/- Minus Rs.3,53,89,998/-) is unexplained. No explanation or documentary evidence of this credit in Bank Account has been provided by the assessee. This amount, therefore, credited to his bank account is treated as unexplained credit within the meaning of section 68 of IT Act and is added back to the income of the assessee. It shows that the assessee is also having some other sources of income which are not disclosed to the Department. 4. Against the above order, assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT (A) asked .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of a total sum of Rs.1,86,99,787/- by cheque, and Rs.77,21,100/- in cash. The appellant has filed cash flow statement incorporating contra entries of withdrawals and deposits in his bank accounts. The appellant also produced the copies of the franchisee agreements, and the details of security deposits returned, partly in the current year of Rs.26,01,000/-, and partly in the subsequent year. It was submitted that on account of huge losses incurred, part of the security deposits were adjusted against the stock remaining with the franchisees. The appellant has also produced confirmations of settlement of the accounts with the franchisees in the FY 2008-09. Thus the total deposits in the appellant's bank accounts with Punjab National Bank, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ws that assessee has submitted the necessary details and ld. CIT (A) has passed a well-reasoned order giving factual findings. The Revenue has not been able to rebut any of the findings except submitting that these were not before the AO. For the sake of repetition, this argument is totally unsustainable as ld. CIT (A) has asked for remand report for additional documents but AO chose to ignore. In this regard, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) which is a well-reasoned order and uphold the same. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. ITA No.5383/Del/2016 10. This is an appeal against the deletion of penalty by the ld. CIT(A) under section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide his order dat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... or staff salaries, staff welfare, conveyance and other expenses, amounting to Rs.1,1l,908/- has been deleted. Hence, the penalty is leviable, if at all, only for an amount of additions of Rs.79,401/-. However, after careful consideration, it is held that the addition of the telephone expenses of Rs.38A01/- and of disallowance of deduction u/s 80C of Rs.41,000/- do not fall within the definition of concealment of income, or of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Apex Court, in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products (2010) 322 ITR 158, disapproved of the Revenue's contention that submitting an incorrect claim for expenditure would amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. It was observed that unless .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates