AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 207
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in not appreciating that mere mentioning about the initiation of penalty proceedings, in the last para of the assessment order does not amount to recording of satisfaction as envisaged u/s 271 (1)(c). 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the satisfaction of the A.O. as to whether assesses has concealed his particulars of Income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income is a condition precedent before levying penalty u/s 271 (1 )(c). 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that concealment of Income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars are two different connotation and hence a clear charge as to whether assessee has concealed his particulars or has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant has obtained bogus accommodation entries from three parties amounting to Rs. 18,51,600/- as per the following details:- S.No. Value of entry Instrument No. Dated Name of A/c Bank name and branch A/c No. Of entry giving a/c 1 10,01,600 897084 16.3.2000 Teem Metals Pvt Ltd Vijaya Bank, Ram Nagar 2789 2 6,00,600 287114 24.3.2000 Changia Steels Pvt Ltd Vijaya Bank, Ram Naqar 2566 3. 2,50,000 897084 28.3.2000 Teem Metals Pvt. Ltd. KVB Karol Bagh 2789 4.2. On the basis of the aforesaid information obtained from the Investigation Wing, the assessment was re-opened by issuing notice u/s 148 of the IT Act. In the re-opened proceedings, the AO made an a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....els (P) Ltd. According to the assessee, the cheques were received for allotment of shares, however, the shares were not allotted and the money was returned by way of cheques in this very year. The cheques were encashed after the close of the year. Receipt and payment are by limited companies and all transactions have been conducted through banking channels. No benefit has been received by the assessee. The transactions have not been recorded in the books because the assessee made the repayment in this very year. On these facts, it can be said that the assessee was in possession of money equivalent to the aggregate of the amounts involved in the cheques. /4s these cheques were cleared and credited in assessee's bank account, the possessi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s primary burden u/s 69A of the Act It may be mentioned here that the AO has made addition under a wrong section 68, but it is found that no entry has been made in the books of the assessee. Therefore, the addition should have been correctly made u/s 69A. The Tribunal has all the powers to correct such minor error in regard to the correct provision applicable on the facts. Thus, it is held that the Id. CIT(Appeals) rightly upheld the addition of Rs. 13.50 lakh." 3. ld. CIT (A) confirmed the action of the A.O. 4. The ld. counsel for the assessee Sh. P.C. Yadav, Advocate argued at length and also placed on record the written submissions containing 7 pages along with judgment of various courts of law and the paper books which are on reco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue of initiation of proceedings. The ld. counsel for the assessee has brought the original notice and shown to the Bench. On perusal of the same it is found that there is no difference between the photo copy annexed at paper book as well as original notice and hence the submission of the ld. DR deserves to be ignored. The ld. DR failed to point out any contrary decision in the case of Manju Nath Cotton Mills reported in 359 ITR 565. Hence the appeal of the assessee deserves to be allowed on this ground alone. 7. The ld. DR made arguments that it is a case of difference of opinion because the Assessing Officer has made the addition, in quantum proceedings u/s 68. While ITAT in quantum proceedings has upheld the addition u/s 69A which prov....