TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 825
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... arising out of order of ITO, Ward-II, Vapi, dated 10/12/2010 passed u/s.143(3) of the Act. The appeal relating to penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, is directed against the order of Ld.CIT(A), Valsad dated 12/05/2015, arising out of order of ITO, Ward-II, Vapi, dated 14/02/2014, passed u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. As observed by Registry, the appeal pertaining to quantum addition is time barred by two days. In order to explain the delay assesee has filed an application submitting that the order of Ld.CIT(A) was received on 14/03/2013 and in appeal against this order was dispatched to the Registry, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, on 09/05/2013 by RPAD. Assessee further mentioned that normally it takes two to three days to dispatch, but in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tly succeeded. Subsequent to order of Ld.CIT(A) in quantum appeal penalty proceedings were initiated u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, on the alleged sustained addition of unexplained cash credit of Rs. 1 Lac, penalty of Rs. 30,900/- was imposed. 5. Aggrieved assessee is now in appeal before Tribunal against the quantum addition and levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, sustained by Ld.CIT(A) 6. First we take up ITA no.1418/Ahd/2013 relating to quantum addition wherein assessee has raised three grounds of appeal. Ground no.1 relating to above appeal is as follows: 1. ITO has erred in law and on facts to add on amount of Rs. 2,49,000/- u/s.68 of I.Y. Act 1961. An amount of Rs. 1,69,500/- was not taken in the year under appeal. Learned CIT(A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....agriculture produced. However, Ld.Counsel could not place any documentary evidences in the form of confirmation, income tax return and bank statements of Mr.Manilal Madhavdas before both the lower authorities. We are therefore, of the view that in the given facts and circumstances of the case where assessee has failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the alleged cash credit of Rs. 1 Lac from Mr.Manilal Madhavdas, we confirm the addition u/s.68 of the Act, at Rs. 1 Lac and call no interference in the order of Ld.CIT(A). In the result this ground of assessee is dismissed. 11. Ground no.2 raised in this appeal is as follows: 2. "ITO has erred in law out on facts to all an amount of Rs. 78,000/- difference worked in capital a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....heet and another in the proprietorship concern. We therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order of Ld.CIT(A) and confirm the addition of Rs. 78,000/- In the result this ground of the assessee is dismissed. 13. Ground no.3 raised in this appeal is as follows:- 3. "Learned A.O. has erred in law on facts to estimate household withdrawal of Rs. 99,520/- without any basis. Learned CIT(Appeals) was also explained that there was withdrawal of Rs. 53,212/- from the firm Vinay Enterprises, which if added to household withdrawal of Rs. 44,486/- made from the books of M/s.Gopal Traders, total withdrawal will be of (Rs.44,400 + Rs. 53,212) =97,612/- which is no means less.'' 14. This ground relates to estimation of household expenses by L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny family members and their income tax return as well as withdrawal made by them in their individual capacity. In the totality of the facts and considering the minimum standard of living required, we find the estimation of household expenses at Rs. 1,44,000/- by Ld. Assessing Officer to be justified. We therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the order of Ld.CIT(A) and we therefore, dismiss this ground of the assessee. In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed. ITA no.1674/Ahd/2015 for A.Y. 2008-09. 19. The above appeal of assessee relates to penalty imposed u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, wherein assesee has raised following ground: 1. On facts and circumstances of the case,Ld.CIT(A), Valsad has erred in law and on facts....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not have been levied on the assessee. 23. On the other hand Ld.DR supported the order of lower authorities. 24. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. In this appeal assessee is aggrieved against the order of CIT(A) confirming penalty of Rs. 30,900/- imposed penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act by Ld. Assessing Officer on unexplained cash of Rs. 1 Lac received from Mr.Manilal M. Patel. We notice that impugned addition of Rs. 1 lac has been confirmed by Ld.CIT(A) as well as Tribunal. We however, find force in the arguments of Ld.Counsel that proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Act, and u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act are separate. As far as imposition of penalty u/s.271(1)(c)of the Act, on going through the relevant d....