2019 (5) TMI 183

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....enalty u/s 271[1][c] of the Act against the appellant are opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the penalty of Rs. 68,468/- levied u/s. 271[1][c] of the Act in respect of the addition made towards unexplained purchases of Rs. 3,10,420/- sustained by the Hon'ble CIT[A] under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3. The learned CIT[A} failed to appreciate that the appellant has neither concealed any income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income in respect of the above addition made to warrant levy of penalty and therefore, the penalty levied u/s.271[1][c] of the Act requires to b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Act. Subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. In compliance, the learned AR appeared from time to time and produced books of account and bank account details. The Assessing Officer (AO), on verifying the financial statements and Books of account found that the assessee has obtained loan from Karnataka Bank Ltd. and withdrawals from the Bank were used for some other business purpose but were reflected as cash receipts in the cash book. 5. The assessee filed letter dated 24/12/2007 referred at para.3.1.1. of the assessment order. Whereas the AO, considering the facts and the details of cash purchases and the provisions of section 40(A)(3) r.w. rule 6DD made disallowance u/....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re made outside the books of account. Finally, AO, considering the fact of addition in the assessment proceedings, levied penalty of 100% i.e. of Rs. 68,468/- and passed the order dated 30/03/2013. On appeal, the CIT(A) found that none appeared on the date of hearing and based on written submissions filed on record, the CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty and dismissed the assessee's appeal. 7. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, the learned AR submitted that the CIT(A) is not justified in upholding the penalty and argued on the additional ground that the AO has not applied his mind and referred to the copy of the notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 31/12/2007 where the AO has i....