TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 757
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....271(1)(c) for the above year on school fees paid of Rs. 16,44,426/- on the ground that the Appellant has not been able to explain the identity and source of payment of the same. The Appellant submits that he has disclosed all the material facts relevant to the payment and as such he has not concealed the identity or source of payment of the same and that merely because the Appellants explanation has not been accepted by the ITO cannot lead to addition as unexplained credit under section 68 of the Act so as to enable the ITO to levy concealment penalty under section 271(1)(c)." 2. At the outset it may be mentioned here that Ld. CIT(A) has given substantial relief to the assessee, therefore, it was considered necessary to enquire from the De....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the same Rs. 16,44,426/- is being added to the total income being unexplained investment u/s. 68 of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) is being separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." The aforementioned addition has been confirmed by the Tribunal in quantum proceeding vide order dated 21/11/2012 passed in ITA No.7843/Mum/2010, copy of which is placed at pages 8 to 14 of the paper book. The addition has been confirmed as per following observations: "12. Ground No. 8 relate to the addition of Rs. 16,44,426/- as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. 13. A perusal of the assessment order shows that the assessee has claimed that the school fees of his children amounting to Rs. 16,44,426/- was pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f school fees has been made by his mother-in-law. Even before us the assessee could not supply the copy of the bank statements from which the amount has been transmitted to India. But the fact is that payment Of Rs. 1644426.00 has been made to the School therefore it is on the assessee to explain the sources from which the payments have been made. Considering the facts in totality, in our humble opinion, the assessee has failed to discharge the onus cast upon him. We do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) therefore addition of Rs. 16,44,426/- is confirmed. This ground of the assessee is dismissed. As the person is the same from whom the school fees have been claimed to have been paid and the source and the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsp; (J.P.Devadhar, J.) 3.3 On these facts, it is the case of the assessee that on merits penalty is not leviable as the assessee has submitted an explanation that in view of financial difficulty being faced by the assessee, the school fees of the children were paid by the mother-in-law of the assessee and this explanation was submitted to the AO during the course of assessment proceedings vide submission dated 19/07/2007 and it is also reproduced in the assessment order as under. "As regards payment of school fees of my children, I wish to inform you that my mother-in-law, Ms. C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upheld the penalty. His order should be upheld. 5. We have heard both the parties and their contentions have carefully been considered. It is a case where the assessee had submitted the explanation during the assessment proceeding itself and the source of payment of school fee was mentioned to be payments made by mother-in-law of the assessee. Thus, the persons who has paid the money is closely related to the family of the assessee. The AO has confirmed this addition for the reason that assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the source of payment. However, it is not the case of AO that the contention of the assessee that the source of payment was mother-in-law is not correct. The aforementioned addition was made on account of informat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear that the additions in respect of which penalty was confirmed have been accepted by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court leading to substantial question of law. When the High Court admits substantial question of law on an addition, it becomes apparent that the addition is certainly debatable. In such circumstances penalty cannot be levied u/s. 271(1)(c) as has been held in several cases including Rupam Mercantile Vs. DCIT (2004) 91 ITD 237 (Ahd) (tm) and Smt. Raila Ratilal Shah vs. ACIT [1998] 60 TTJ (Ahd) 171. The admission of substantial question of Law by the Hon'ble High Court lend credence to the bona fides of the assessee in claiming deduction. Once it turns out that the claim of the assessee could have been considered for the deduction a....