2014 (1) TMI 486

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for the assessment year under consideration on 08.09.2006 declaring an income of Rs.2,40,760/- and case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was framed at an income of Rs.6,36,520/- vide order u/s 143(3) dated 23.12.2008 wherein addition on account of assessee's past saving in cash of Rs.2,22,752/- and Rs.1,73,006/- being negative cash balance shown in the cash book on 26.4.2005 was made. Assessee took up the matter in appeal and addition of Rs.1,85,000/- being unexplained cash deposited on 12.4.2005 in bank account of the assessee remaining unexplained was confirmed and other addition came to be deleted. 2.1 Penalty proceedings were initiated during the assessment proceedings and after due notice and considering the reply of the ass....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....3 ITR 220; Delhi High Court in the case of Sohan Singh 254 ITR 170 and Dharamendra Textile Processors of Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in "Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors", 306 ITR 277 (Supreme Court), it has been held that the object behind the enactment of section 271 (1)(c) of the Act read with its explanations, indicates that the said section has been enacted to provide for a remedy for loss of revenue, that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is a civil liability and that willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability; that in the present case, by wrongly claiming the software expenses as revenue expenditure, the assessee caused loss to the revenue and so, the concealment penalty was rightl....