TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 289
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of AO in levying penalty of Rs. 90,000/- and that too without assuming jurisdiction as per law and without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without considering the submission of assessee and latest position of law in this regard and the impugned penalty order being illegal and void ab-initio. II) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of AO in passing the impugned penalty order being contrary to law as the assessment order framed under section 143(3) dated 6.3.2013 was also illegal, beyond jurisdiction and void ab-initio. III) That having regard to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2013. In his return of income the assessee has declared income from furniture shop, income from property dealing and income from printing of newspaper business in the name and style of 'Uttaranchal Deep Publications'. In addition to that the assessee has also shown his income from agricultural activities of Rs. 1,20,000/-. On examination of book of accounts of M/s Saket Furniture & Decorator it was discovered that the assessee made cash transactions with 08 parties mentioned in the penalty order. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was required to explain the nature as well as to establish the genuineness of these transactions claimed to be entered with different persons. Further, the assessee was specifically asked t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T(A). He filed a Paper Book containing pages 1 to 12 having the copy of assessment order dated 6.3.2013 passed in assessee's own case u/s. 143(3) during quantum proceedings; copy of notice u/s. 271(1)(c) dated 6.3.2013 issued alongwith the said order; copy of assessee's reply dated 7.9.2013 filed to AO during the course of penalty proceedings; copy of written submissions dated 26.8.2014 filed before Ld. CIT(A) and copy of further submissions dated 6.1.2015 filed before Ld. CIT(A). He further stated that Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the action of AO in levying penalty of Rs. 90,000/- and that too without assuming jurisdiction as per law and without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without considering the submission....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of section 40A(3) Rs. 35000.00 and iii) Addition of provision of salary payable of Rs. 20000/- alleging that fake provision were made. We find that with regard to addition of Rs. 1,20,000/- the assessee had fully explained the entries as mentioned in its books because all the persons and transaction are genuine from whom amount was accepted as loan for just financial assistance and on being comfortable all transactions of loans were returned back. Confirmation of all persons were filed before the lower authorities. We note that at the time of assessment the assessee had given a consent to add the loans in their income to avoid litigation and save valuable time but which does not mean that the amount entered in the books in name of differe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CTI(A), which was not considered. 7.1 In view of above, there was no concealment of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars on the above points because mere non-acceptance of explanation offered cannot form a basis for the satisfaction of assessing authority to the effect that the assessee has concealed particulars of his income. In this regard, we draw support from the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Reliance Petro products Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 3 taxmann.com 47 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue that by itself would not attract the penalty under section 271 (1)( c)....