TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 1611
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee firm as and by way of salary. (ii) Rs. 4,48,000/- being the amount incurred for providing alternative accommodation to the tenants without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case in totality holding both the amounts be bogus expenditure on technical grounds. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the levy of penalty with reference to an addition of Rs. 1,44,000/- being unproved cash credit in the books. 3. The appellants crave leave to add, amend, alter and/or vary any of the grounds at the time or before the hearing of this appeal. 4. The appellant therefore prays that penalty levied by the ld. Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) may please be cancelled." 2. Brief facts of the case are a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce of Rs. 7,31,000/-(Rs. 2,83,000 of salary + Rs. 4,48,000 on account of tenant accommodation charges). 2.4. The ld.AO further made addition of Rs. 1,44,000/- in respect of squared up cash credits amounting to Rs. 18,000/- each from 8 persons. The ld.AO observed that, the assessee had only submitted a statement of name of persons, from whom cash of Rs. 18,000/- has been received. Accordingly, the addition of Rs, 1,44,000/- was made u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act and the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(l)(c) were also initiated on the ground that the assessee has concealed its income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 2.5. The assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) was completed on 13.11.2009, determining the total income at Rs. 22,90,506/-.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....just to buy peace, agreed to disallow a reasonable amount, which cannot be the basis for holding the expenses claimed were bogus. As regards the remaining disallowance of Rs. 1,69,000/- [Rs. 9,00,000 - (Rs. 2,83,000+ 4,48,000)], the AO has not given any details that out of which expenses, the disallowance has been made. Accordingly, it was finally submitted by the assessee that the disallowance of Rs. 9 lakhs is made only on estimation, assumption, presumption and surmises and the assessee has not concealed any income or furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. 3.3. As regards the penalty on the addition of Rs. 1,44,000/- u/s. 68, it was submitted that due to unavoidable circumstances, the assessee in the course of assessment procee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or it has shown any reason as to why in spite of sufficient opportunities available to the appellant, the same was not filed before the-AO at the time of assessment or penalty proceedings. Under these circumstances, no cognizance is being taken of this list. Otherwise also, since the appellant furnished inaccurate particulars of income in respect of these cash credits, penalty is legally justified on the addition u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act, hence the same is confirmed. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 4.1. We have perused the paper book filed by the assessee, the orders passed by the authorities below and heard the arguments by both the parties. It is observed that the assessee vide its letter ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are not genuine, strengthens. Moreover, the assesse had agreed for an adhoc disallowance in respect of the technical errors to buy peace and to avoid litigation. Following the ration laid down in the case of MAC Datta Pvt.Ltd., Vs. CIT II, reported in (2014) 1 SCC 674, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, penalty levied on the disallowance of Rs. 2,83,000/- and Rs. 4,48,000/- is hereby confirmed. 4.3. Accordingly Ground number 1 of the assessee's appeal is dismissed. 5. As regards to Ground no. 2, it is noted that neither at the time of assessment nor at the time of penalty proceedings, the assessee could not file the confirmation from such parties. Therefore, it has been noted by the authorities below that the primary onus of proving the genuin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....71(1) (c ) of the Act, it is imperative to demonstrate that the assessee is found to have made a erroneous or a false claim. In fact a mere making of a claim, which is not found sustainable by the ld.AO, does not ipso facto justify furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of section 271 (1) (c ) of the Act, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products Ltd., reported in 322 ITR 58. 5.5. In the present case, ostensibly, the assessee had furnished the details of the loan taken from the 8 parties along with the PAN numbers before the ld.CIT(A). It was submitted before the Ld.CIT(A) that due to unavoidable circumstances, the assessee could not produce the third part evidences i.e.,....