2005 (2) TMI 473

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nder s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). 2. The learned AO levied such a penalty concealment of Rs. 33,618 on account of unexplained investment, Rs. 1,154 unexplained cash and Rs. 10,540 income from other sources totalling to Rs. 45,312. This penalty was confirmed by the learned CIT(A). Hence, this appeal. 3. I have heard the rival submissions a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rred an appeal against the additions in question, so the penalty has been correctly levied. 6. I do not agree with the submission of the learned Departmental Representative that mere non-filing of appeal against the findings of the learned AO, does not, ipso facto, lead to levy of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The parameters for penalty proceedings, which are necessarily criminal in na....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed AO could not be explained and this was added after rejecting the explanation of the assessee. 9. The last amount of Rs. 10,540 was added under the head income from other sources, by removing the same from the claimed agricultural income of Rs. 29,780. The learned CIT(A) rejected all submissions made in this regard on behalf of the assessee, and also simply brushed aside the plethora of judic....