TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 694
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsal Group of cases by Investigation Wing, Chandigarh. The assessee was one of the person/concern covered under section 132 of the Act. 5. As regards unexplained expenditure of Rs. 94,000/- under section 69C of the Act, it is observed by the Assessing Officer that as per page 81 of Annexure A-1 seized from the office premises of the assessee i.e. SCO 2474, Sector 22, Chandigarh. This was hand written sheet showing certain transactions in the name of Shri Ashwani Tayal, Shri Mange Ram Goyal and Shri Anil and Shri Rajiv Bawa etc. The assessee was directed to reconcile the transactions with regular books of account. The assessee contended that page 81 consisted of some petty entries of cash given by Shri Anil and Shri Lalit Jindal for petty works of projects. It was further submitted that this amount was undisclosed rotation capital investment of Shri J.C.Bansal and he had already declared Rs. 30.70 lacs before Settlement Commission. The plea of the assessee that this amount represents undisclosed income of Shri J.C.Bansal and has been declared in his hands before Settlement Commission was not acceptable. The seized document pertains to the assessee and this was undisclosed expenditu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d be added. The Assessing Officer did not accept contention of the assessee because assessee did not produce any evidence with respect to non-payment of Rs. 5 lacs. It was, therefore, held that assessee has concealed the income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty was accordingly, imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. The assessee challenged the penalty order before ld. CIT(Appeals), detailed submissions were made, however, ld. CIT(Appeals) did not accept contention of the assessee because both the above additions have been confirmed by ITAT and are based upon seized document. The ld. CIT(Appeals) noted that assessee did not disclose all the facts in the return of income and burden upon assessee has not been discharged and penalty can be imposed even under deeming additions under section 68/69 of Income Tax Act. The penalty was confirmed on both these additions. 9. The ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before authorities below. He has submitted that even if addition on quantum have been confirmed but penalty need not to be imposed in each and every case. The quantum and penalty proceedings are separate and distinct. The a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ased upon seized document and explanation of the assessee was not found sastisfactory. The assessee explained that it is rotating capital investment by Shri J.C.Bansal which had already been declared before Settlement Commission in the amount of Rs. 30,70,000/-. However, when break-up of the same was given, amount of Rs. 94,500/- did not find mention in the same declaration. The assessee did not press this ground of appeal before the Tribunal and as such, it was dismissed and addition was confirmed. On the face of it, it is clear that assessee failed to explain this issue and whatever explanation was offered, was not substantiated through any evidence or material on record. Therefore, Explanation-1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is clearly attracted in the case of the assessee. The authorities below were, therefore, justified in levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act against the assessee on this addition. We, therefore, dismiss this ground of appeal of the assessee. 10(i). As regards levy of the penalty on the addition of Rs. 5 lacs, the quantum addition has been confirmed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the seized document but did not accept contention o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m have been confirmed by the Tribunal but it was confirmed because assessee failed to reconcile the entries that no amount of Rs. 5 lacs have been received in cash from Shri Rahul Chhabra. Since quantum and penalty proceedings are distinct and independent and assessee is now able to explain that due amount was paid subsequently as noted above, therefore, we are of the view it is not a fit case of levy of penalty on the addition of Rs. 5 lacs. We may note that the findings in this order shall be relevant to the penalty appeal only and shall have no bearing on the quantum additions. 11. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view penalty need not be imposed on the addition of Rs. 5 lacs. The orders of authorities below are accordingly, set aside and levy of penalty on the addition of Rs. 5 lacs is deleted. 12. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA 234/2016 (A.Y. 2009-10) 13. In this year, as per record, penalty was levied on two additions of Rs. 59,43,115/- and Rs. 4,80,000/-. 14. Brief facts relating to the issues are that during the course of search, page Nos. 59 to 67 of Annexure A-2 were seized from the office of the assessee. The said document....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the said pages and whether the same were reflected in the books of account. In written reply, assessee stated that the figures of these pages were notional and not actual figures and he also filed page- wise reply of all the said documents which are reproduced by the Assessing Officer at page 12 of the assessment order. The Assessing Officer, thereafter, analyzed the reply of the assessee and found it was not acceptable and made an addition of Rs. 1,28,68,362/- holding that page 67 was nothing but summary of pages 59 to 66. 15. The addition was challenged before ld. CIT(Appeals) and ld. CIT(Appeals) considered this issue in detail and held that Assessing Officer having added Rs. 1,28,69,362/- was not correct as the same was an outstanding amount. However, at page 15 Para (i) of the assessment order, amount of Rs. 59,43,115/- was stated i.e. Rs. 46,43,115/- + Rs. 13 lacs as received by Shri Monga. The said calculation was done by the Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(Appeals), therefore, restricted the addition to Rs. 59,43,115/-. 15(i) It may also be noted here that assessee and revenue preferred appeals before the Tribunal however, both the appeals of the assessee as well as revenu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 4,80,000/- was made. 18 (i) Ld. Representatives of both the parties submitted that this issue is same as have been considered in assessment year 2007-08 on the addition of Rs. 94,500/-, therefore following the reasons for decision for same year, we confirm the levy of penalty on this addition. This ground of appeal of the assessee is accordingly, dismissed. 19. As regards the addition of Rs. 59,43,115/- on which penalty was imposed, ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before authorities below. He has referred to PB-7 which is explanation filed by Shri Anil Monga explaining each and every seized document. He has submitted that Shri Anil Monga either booked same property with the assessee in his own name, in the name of his wife or against some customer or friend. In the seized letter dated 10.08.2008, Shri Anil Monga has given approximate and notional figures. All the investments made with the assessee which he wanted that assessee should re- purchase the same. No amount have been paid by assessee to Shri Anil Monga. The addition is made of the amount payable on which no inquiry have been conducted on the confirmation filed by Shri Anil Monga. The addi....