TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 207
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tiation 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 has to be framed against an assessee before levying penalty u/s 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owing 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 addition of Rs. 18,51,600/- on account of unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the IT Act. The said addition was challenged before the CIT(Appeals), which proved unsuccess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se 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 possession of cheques cannot be denied. As no evidence exists on record regarding applications made by the two companies for allotment of shares, the amounts found with the assessee can at best be said to be merely a credit received and not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 record. 5. The ld. DR on the other hand relied upon the orders of both the authorities below. 6. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In respect of ground nos. 2 to 5 whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 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 provisions are materially different from the provisions of section 68 and hence it is a case of difference opinion. On this point also penalty is not leviable. Further it was noticed by the Bench that the assessee has turnover of Rs. 4.79 crore ....