TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 296
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2.2009, whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, on the assessee. "(a)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, when the assessee offered for taxation genuine loans to avoid protracted litigation? (b)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in reversing the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) cancelling the penalty after due consideration of the facts and judicial decisions? (c)Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0 To Closing Balance 3,00,000 3,00,000 3,00,000 1 Apr By Opening Balance 3,00,000 8.The enquiries conducted by the AO revealed that the two amounts of Rs. 3,00,000 each shown in the names of Shri Rueben Robert Ponnia and Shri Ananda Kumar Jagannathan came from the savings bank account of Shri R.Jaganathan, the Managing Partner of the assessee-firm. 8.1.The AO examined the bank pass book of Shri Rueben Robert Ponnia and found that the balance in this account never exceeded Rs. 15,000. It was also found that Shri Rueben Robert Ponnia owned 5 acres of dry land and that he did not carry out any agricultural operation during the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce. "(a)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, when the assessee offered for taxation genuine loans to avoid protracted litigation? (b)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in reversing the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) cancelling the penalty after due consideration of the facts and judicial decisions? 4.Learned counsel for the appellant-assessee, relying upon the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal, in (2000) 241 ITR 124 (M.P.), submitted that merely....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....minimum extent of 100% of the tax on such concealed income in the form of unproved cash credits. He submitted that the money belonging to the son and daughter of the senior partner was routed through the third party Mr.Rueban Robert Ponnia which could not be proved to be genuine cash credits and therefore, imposition of penalty to the minimum extent by 100% has to be upheld and no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. 6.Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present case. The matter of explanation furnished by the assessee firm, being accepted by the learned Tribunal or not, is a fact finding exercise and unless the findings of the Tribun....