TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 273
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0. 2. In this appeal, Revenue is aggrieved by the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 158BFA(2) of the Act with respect to the additions of (i) Rs. 11,71,687/- on account of unexplained investment in house property; and, (ii) Rs. 1,96,335/- on account of unexplained marriage expenditure. 3. In brief, the relevant facts are that the respondent-assessee is an individual engaged in the business of construction, purchase and sale of plots and is a partner in partnership firms. A search action u/s 132(1) of the Act was conducted in the case of the assessee on 02.02.2000, as a consequence of which the Assessing Officer finalized a block assessment u/s 158BC r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 27.02.2002 f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the Assessing Officer finalized the assessment u/s 158BC r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act based on the seized material found during the course of search as also the statements of the assessee and therefore it could not be said that the additions have been made entirely on estimate basis. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. Representative for the respondent-assessee vehemently pointed out that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty for the reasons stated in the impugned order. As per the Ld. Representative, the addition with respect to the unexplained investment in house property was primarily based on estimation and that there was no clinching evidence found in the course of search which showed any unexplained investment. Even with regard to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dodsal Ltd. (supra) held in the context of section 158BFA(2) of the Act that the section provides a discretion to the Assessing Officer in levy of penalty. In the background of the aforesaid legal position what is required to be examined is as to whether the CIT(A) has recorded appropriate reasons for exercise of discretion of deleting the penalty, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. In the above context, we have perused the orders of the authorities below in the penalty proceedings as well as in the quantum assessment proceedings. With respect to the addition on account of unexplained investment in house property of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....papers found of Rs. 9.99 lakhs pertained to the construction being carried out by the assessee at the relevant point of time at three different locations namely, (i) the Bungalow in question; (ii) Dinesh Complex; and, (iii) Factory of Vishalsagar Home & Agro Products Ltd.. Since no proper books of account were maintained by the assessee, the loose papers found in the course of search could not be reconciled and the addition has been sustained. However, it was pointed out that the loose papers did not clinchingly suggest that the expenditure was relatable to the construction in the impugned property and that the valuation made by the DVO at Rs. 19.64 lakhs also justifies the investment shown in the account books, which is almost near about t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The CIT(A) in the quantum proceedings estimated the value of investment at Rs. 30 lakhs as against Rs. 40 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer. Under these circumstances, in our view, the CIT(A) has correctly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and held that the impugned addition on account of unexplained investment in house property of Rs. 11,71,687/- was on estimation basis and not on the basis of any concrete evidence found in the course of search towards incurrence of unaccounted expenditure qua the impugned property. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, we affirm the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the penalty with respect to the addition of Rs. 11,71,687/- on account of unexplai....