AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 134
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts and issues are common in both the appeals, they were clubbed and heard together and, therefore, a common order is passed for the sake of convenience. 2. Grounds raised by assessees in both the appeals are common, the sum and substance of which is against the action of ld. CIT(A) in sustaining penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. To dispose of these appeals, we refer to the facts in case of Syed Baqar Hasan being ITA No. 312/H/2015. 4. Briefly the facts of the case are, assessee deriving income from salary, share income from Hansa Overseas and other sources, filed his return of income for the AY under consideration on 31/10/2006 admitting income of Rs. 1,57,700. The case was reopened u/s 147 and an order u/s 143(3) read with sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings of the Company. f) It is during the course of remand proceedings, the Company for the first time brought out the issue of sale of property by the Directors. Here the assessee took the stand that the entire sale consideration was appropriated by the Banks directly towards dues outstanding against the name of the company, contrary to the credits appearing in his bank account and the subsequent date of OTS on 29.12.2005. g) Though a vague claim of 'direct appropriation by the banks' was made by the assessee, but failed to prove that the sale was a 'conditional sale' or the property in question was mortgaged to the banks. h) As it was clear that no strings were attac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dded in the case of company was upheld by the first appellate authority. He further observed that, based on the information furnished by the assessee in the case of Company, M/s Hoe Leather Garments Pvt Ltd., the case of the assessee was reopened and a notice u/s 148 was issued. Even at this stage, the assessee has not disclosed the transaction of sale of property in the return filed in response to notice u/s 148 and claimed some sort of exemption, as he thinks fit. The reasons for not showing the sale transaction are clear since the assessee is well aware of the fact that the gains arising out of the sale are not exempt under any provisions of the' Act. As the assessee is clear about this position, he avoided admitting the sale transac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was wholly and exclusively used for discharge of debt and no benefit accrued or received to assessee from the said transaction. 9.1 Ld. AR also submitted that the assessee being Director/Partner of the company/firm has used the proceeds of sale towards settlement of One Time Settlement (OTS). Also, the assessee has disclosed these facts in the books of the company/firm as unsecured loan and discharged the loan commitments in the company/firm. Moreover, the assessee has disclosed the surplus out of the settlement to the bank in the books of the company/firm as below: Secured loan from SBI as on 31/03/05 Rs. 332.00 Less: One time settlement by SBI Rs. 285.00 Offered as income for tax purposes during The AY 2006-07 Rs. 47....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... decisions to contend that when there are conflicting views, the view favourable to the assessee is to be adopted. However, in the facts of the present case, the AR has not brought to our notice any decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court contrary to the view expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions. Therefore, when the decision relied upon by the learned AR is not of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and there are decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court holding that amount paid towards discharge of mortgage debt cannot be treated as expenditure u/s. 48 of the Act, we are bound to follow the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) in upholding th....