TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (11) TMI 187
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment Years 1991-92 and 1992-93 vide their orders dated 31.03.1994 and 30.03.1995 respectively. Penalties in dispute, were imposed by DCIT, Circle-52, Kolkata u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act vide his separate orders dated 29.04.2008. 2. The issues in these appeals of assessee are against the order of CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty imposed by AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.62,191/- for AY 1991-92 and Rs.1,44,355 for AY 1992-93. 3. Brief facts leading to the above issue are that a search was conducted in the business and residential premises of the assessee on 20.03.1992. The assessee filed her returns of income for AY 1991-92 on 30.03.1993 and for AY 1992-93 on 28.03.1994. The assessee declared income from house propert....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was not agitated by the assessee before the Hon'ble Tribunal and no evidences regarding its genuineness has been placed before me during the course of penalty appeal proceedings. As regards treating gift as unexplained cash credit, the matter was agitated before the Hon'ble Tribunal by way of cross objection but not pressed and therefore dismissed by the Hon'ble ITAT. Even before the Assessing Officer or before the CIT(Appeals) during the course of quantum appeal no details with regard to persons making the gift etc was provided by the appellant. Even before me during the course of this appeal no details have been submitted. As regards rejecting the loss claim in construction business is concerned, no details were filed before the Assessin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sponse to the notice of the Assessing Officer why penalty was not leviable and it was therefore his responsibility to lead evidences if any. As has been mentioned earlier the appellant has not been able to establish even in penalty proceedings that the income returned by him was the true income. I therefore have no hesitation in holding that penalty uIs.271(1)(c) was leviable in the case of the assessee The Assessing Officer has already made allowances for returned income while computing the tax sought to be evaded. Therefore action of the Assessing Officer s levying penalty at Rs.62,191/- is confirmed. For AY 1992-93: "3.2. I have gone through the facts of the case. Additions were made on several accounts on the basis of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rior was not considered at any stage is not correct. Undisclosed jewellery has been finally assessed in the hands of the assessee for the year under consideration at Rs.2,67,156/-. During the course of penalty proceedings the assessee has not been able to show that these jewellery were accounted jewellery. Therefore it is to be concluded that penalty was leviable to this extent. Action of the Assessing Officer in levying penalty u/s.271(1)(c) to this extent is confirmed. It is further seen from CIT(Appeals) order that he has directed the Assessing Officer to delete the additions in respect of UTI investments on the basis of the findings in the remand report that payments were made out of cash available with the appellant and through cheque.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come on account of unexplained cash credit and gift is at Rs.19,253/- which is negligible. Remaining additions according to Ld. counsel are only on estimate basis and neither the AO nor the CIT(A) has explained how the amounts are concealed. In respect to unexplained cash credit as well as unexplained gift, AO or CIT(A) has no where tried to explain how the amounts are concealed. On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR supported the orders of lower authorities. 6. We find that the facts above narrated in both the years are undisputed. In respect to AY 1991-92, the addition made by AO on account of cash credit and gift remains at Rs.19,253/- as against the assessment made by AO at Rs.1,16,800/-. Even in the penalty order, the AO has not brought....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the details as worked reads as under: (i) Total jewellery found at the time of search: (a) Value Rs.9,09,173/- (b) Weight 2,502.80 gms and out of this the jewellery seized is as under: Value Rs.8,08,305/- Weight 2497.400 gm. ii) Explanation offered by assessee about ownership of jewelleries is as under: Sl. No. Particulars Gross weight Value 1. Assessee Herself 726.700 (seized) 5.400(Not seized) 732.100 267,156.00 2. Sri Kumarendu Bagchi (Husband) 513.900 3. Smt. Uma Rani Chatterjee (Grandmother)....