TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 287
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Rs. 7,50,000/- holding that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income with reference to amount of Rs. 7,50,000/-. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that this is a fit case for invoking the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act as the assessee had not been able to satisfactorily explain the source of credit of Rs. 7,50,000/-. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty in respect of amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- ignoring the entire material produced and submissions made by the assessee. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has misdirected himself in ignoring the material fact that the assessee had discharged the burden laid upon him by way of furnishing confirmati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Assessing Officer to explain the source of credits. In the present case, the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) has ignored all the evidences. Mere addition by the Assessing Officer as confirmed by CIT(A) in quantum appeal would not automatically justify the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. That the observation of Ld.CIT(A) that the AO has recorded his satisfaction regarding furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income with reference to the credit of Rs. 7,50,000/- in the assessment order, is incorrect. Mere averment is not sufficient; rather satisfaction has to be discernible from the order itself. Hence, the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer is bad in law. 9. That the appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o confirmed order passed by Ld.AO. 7. Aggrieved by order passed by Ld.CIT (A), assessee is in appeal before us now. 8. Both parties agree that all grounds relates to penalty levied amounting to Rs. 7,52,103/-. Therefore, for sake of convenience, we are considering all grounds together. 9. Ld.Counsel submitted that assessee raised following amounts towards share capital and unsecured loans: I. Share Capital: 1. Ms Bharti Singh Rs.1,00,000 2. Mr.Sumit Yadav Rs.10,40,000 3. Abhishek Kalra Rs.9,99,750 4. Palash Sen Rs. 5,000 5. Pareek Jain Rs. 2,49,984 Total: Rs. 23,94,734 II. Unsecured Loans 1. Sh. Deekshant Sahrawat Rs. 8,07,000 2. Sh. Mohit Khurana ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1)(c) penalty proceedings had been initiated. 10. On contrary, Ld.Sr.DR submitted that addition confirmed by Ld.CIT (A) has been accepted by assessee, thereby no appeal has been preferred by assessee before this Tribunal. Ld.Sr.DR submitted that from assessment order it is clear that penalty has been initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Further on issuance of notice under section 274 read with section 271 (1) (c ) of the Act, assessee has not filed any reply in response to penalty notice and no explanation has been offered to substantiate the claim. She thus supported orders of authorities below. 11. We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. 12. It is observed that as....