TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 323
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... parties submitted that though the appeals relate to different assessment years, but the facts in all the appeals are identical except for the assessment year and the amounts involved and the submissions made by them while arguing one case would be applicable to the other appeals also. In view of the aforesaid submissions, we therefore, for the sake of convenience, proceed to dispose of all the appeals by way of a consolidated order. 3. First, we take up Revenue's appeals, i.e. IT(ss)A Nos.442 & 445/Ahd/2012 for AYs 2004-05 & 2007-08 respectively. Common grounds raised in these appeals are as under:- Extracted from IT(ss)A No.442/Ahd/2012 (1) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,50,000....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rest exceeds Rs. 10 lacs and it further states that the instructions will apply retrospectively to the pending appeals. In the present cases, since it is an undisputed fact that on the demands which are in dispute in various appeals of Revenue, the tax effect is less than Rs. 10 lacs and in the absence of any material on record by the Revenue to demonstrate that the issues in the present appeals are covered by exemptions specified in clause (8) of the CBDT Circular, we are of the view that the monetary limit prescribed by the instructions of the aforesaid CBDT Circular would be applicable to the present appeals of the Department and therefore the present appeals of Revenue are not maintainable on account of low tax effect. However, later on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....27/-. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee' preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who vide order dated 19/7/2012 granted substantial relief to the assessee and confirmed the addition only to the extent of Rs. 1,56,515/-. On the aforesaid addition that was confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). AO vide order dated 28/3/2014 held that the assessee had failed to furnish evidence in support of unexplained income and thereby had concealed the income and has committed default for which he is liable for penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. He accordingly, levied penalty of Rs. 26,392/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before the ld.CIT(A), who vide order dated 04/11/2015 (in Appeal No.CIT(A)- I/CC.1(4)/2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be distinguished from cases where the claim of the assessee is farcical or farfetched. Dubious and fanciful claims under the garb of interpretation, are a mere pretence and not bonafide. Similarly, the appellant can't get benefit of land mark Supreme Court judgment in the case of Reliance Petro Products Ltd., 322 ITR 158 (SC) wherein in the last para of judgment it has been stated ........, wherein there is no findings by the assessing officer for the inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. In fact, same ratio is reiterated by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Ahd-IV Vs. Whiteford India Ltd.- 38 Taxmann.com 15 (Guj.) wherei-n the relief to the assessee was granted with following comments, "..... where no clear ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee has not found to be false or incorrect. He therefore submitted that the penalty be deleted. Ld.CIT-DR supported the orders of AO and Ld.CIT(A). 9. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The issue in the present case is with respect to levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition that have been upheld by the ld.CIT(A). The penalty under s. 271(l)(c) of the Act is leviable if the AO is satisfied in the course of any proceedings under the Act that any person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. 9.1. The necessary ingredients for attracting Explanation 1 to Section. 271(l)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alty proceedings and assessment proceedings are two independent proceedings and the penalty order cannot be solely based on the reasons given in the original order of assessment. Further apart from the falsity of the explanation given by the assessee, the Department must have before it before levying the penalty, cogent material or evidence from which it could be inferred that assessee has consciously concealed the particulars of his income or had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of income. It is well settled that the parameters of judging the justification for addition made in the assessment case of the asssessee is different from the penalty imposed on account of concealment of income or filing inaccurate particulars of incom....