TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 708
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dated 31-12-2007 u/s 254 read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'the Act'). The penalty was levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the A.Yrs. 1987-88, 1988-89. 1989-90 vide order dated 30-03-2012. 2. The only common issue in these appeals of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. For this assessee has raised following grounds in three assessment years: - "ASSESSMENT YEAR -1987-88 1. a. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-40 Mumbai [CIT(A)] erred in confirming the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by the Assessing Officer. 1. b. While doing so, the CIT (A) erred in: - i) N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essing Officer. 1. b. While doing so, the CIT (A) erred in:- i) Not considering the detailed written submission made before him and merely relying on the observation made in the quantum appeal by his predecessor. ii) Failed to appreciate that the quantum proceedings and penalty proceedings are independent. iii) Erroneously not accepting the case law cited by the appellant iv) Relying on case laws which were distinguishable on facts and in law. v) Not considering submissions made by the appellant in respect of each of the addition/ disallowance made by the AO while completing assessment and in respect of which the AO had levied penalty. 1 c. It is submitted that in the facts and in law the CIT (A) failed to appreciate th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer. The appellant therefore prays that the order of the CIT (A) be set aside and the AO be directed to delete the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act." 3. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee filed a complete details and the amount on which the penalty levied, addition / disallowance made by AO and confirmed by CIT(A) and finally, in quantum appeal either deleted or confirmed by the Tribunal, the order wise break up is as under: - ASSESSMENT YEAR 1987-88 S. No Details of Addition/Disallowance Amount Allowed in appeal by Hon Tribunal Confirmed Remarks 1. Unexplained cash credit 94,100 66,100 28,000 Confirmed of Ronak Patel on the gr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Penalty order) 18,965,855 Difference 18,332 ASSESSMENT YEAR 1989-90 1. Interest disallowed 12,19,181 12,19,181 (Page No 60-61 Para 100 of the ITAT order) 2. Unexplained cash credit 20,20,367 20,20,367 (Page No 61-64 Para 102-102.6 of the ITAT order) 3. Total addition/disallowance 32,39,548 32,39,548 4. Penalty levied on (Page 2 of Penalty order) 32,40,709 5. Difference 1,161 From the above, it is clear that in assessment year 1987-88 only addition confirmed by Tribunal is on account of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 93,000/- made on 10-05-1991 made to this creditor. The assessee has stated that he could not obtain any confirmation letter from the party due to passage of long time. Thus, we notice that the assessee has simply placed reliance on his books of account to substantiate this credit and the assessee did not produce any confirmation letter pertaining to either prior years or to subsequent years. We further notice that the assessee has paid interest of Rs. 11,890/- to this creditor during the year under consideration. Thus, we are of the view that the sources to the extent of Rs. 12,000/- can be considered to have been explained in view of the payment of interest, referred above. Accordingly, we modify the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... It is not clear as to whether this credit was received by way of cheque. Apart from giving GIR number, the assessee has not provided the address of the creditor. It is also not clear as to whether the assessee is paying interest to this creditor and the details of repayment were also not given. In these set of facts, we are of the view that the assessee has failed to discharge the initial burden placed upon him u/s 68 of the Act in respect of this creditor. Accordingly, we confirm the assessment of the amount received from this creditor u/s 68 of the Act." 4. We find from the above that the assessee before Tribunal explained that the assessee has furnished copy of account of creditor, copy of receipts issued to the creditor, confirmati....