TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 1331
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Act." 2. Facts of the case in brief, are that the assessee filed return for the first time declaring an income of Rs. 1,02,250/- on 27/2/2007. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had shown opening capital of Rs. 15,81,350/- and no return was filed for earlier years. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) on 27/12/2007 at an income of Rs. 12,70,044/- by making an addition of Rs. 11,14,792/-. Against the said addition, the assessee preferred appeal to the Learned CIT(A), who deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Roopchand Nawalchand Gandhi (2008) 1 DT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to Rs.3,95,688/- being 150% of the tax sought to be evaded. 4. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the learned CIT(A) and reiterated the submissions made before the Assessing Officer. The learned CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee observed that the assessee was in hotel business before the financial year 1998-99 and as per details filed, had shown opening balance of Rs. 8,04,800/- for the assessment year 1999-2000 and thereafter the capital had been increased due to net profit and various gifts claimed to have been received on various occasions, which resulted in showing the opening balance at Rs. 15,81,350/-. The learned CIT(A() pointed out that the Assessing Officer admitted at the time of assessme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T(A) further observed that the Assessing Officer had not brought any material evidence on record to suggest that part of opening balance as confirmed by the ITAT on estimate basis was concealed income of the assessee and there was no observation in the penalty order that any details supplied by the assessee in her return was found to be incorrect or erroneous or frivolous and the addition made out of opening balance shown in the year under consideration was only due to difference of opinion, there was no specific evidence brought on record that the assessee had introduced her concealed income as opening balance of the year under consideration particularly in the view of the fact that the assessee was in hotel business from the year 1985. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssions made before the authorities below and further submitted that as the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the I.T.A.T. in the opening capital balance of the assessee was purely on estimate basis. So it was not a concealed income of the assessee, therefore, penalty was rightly deleted by the learned CIT(A). Reliance was placed on the following cases. 1. CIT vs. Reliance Petrproducts (P) Ltd., 322 ITR 158. 2. Sree Krishna Electricals vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Amp; Anr. (2009) 23 VT 249 (SC). 3. Harigopal Singh vs. CIT, 258 ITR 85 (P&H). 4. ITO Vs. Balotra Co-opt. Marketing Society Ltd. in I.T.A. No. 11 & 12/Jodh/2012 for A.Y. 2003-04 and 2006-07, order dated 12.10.2012. 9. We have considered the submiss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....In the present case, it appears that the Assessing Officer did not allow the claim of the assessee u/s 80P(2)(e) made the disallowance. However, it cannot be said that the assessee did not disclose all the particulars truly because the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(e) was made in the returned income. The Assessing Officer did not accept the claim of the assessee and that can be a ground for making the addition but not for levying the penalty u/s 271(1)( c) of the Act. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Petro products (P) Ltd. , 322 ITR158 has held as under:- ''A glance at the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, suggests that in order to be covered by it, there has to be conce....