2019 (9) TMI 1064

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....case. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of Rs. 30,89,062/-. 3. The learned CIT(A) failed to note that the assessee has offered an explanation which he was not able to substantiate. 4. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the addition made in the quantum proceedings has not been appealed against by the assessee and that but for the scrutiny assessment, the assessee would have got enriched by a tax amount equal to the amount of penalty. 5. The learned CIT(A) ought to have noted that the assessee has failed to substantiate the explanation offered by him, in the course of penalty proceedings, and thus, has not discharged the burden cast on him, by Explanation 1 (B) to Sec.271(1)(c) of the LT. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the assessee to substantiate the claim with evidence. The AO rejected the explanation of the appellant and proceeded with levy of penalty of Rs. 34,48,162/- vide order dated 29.06.2018 passed U/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for the concealment of particulars of income. 4. Being aggrieved on the order of penalty, an appeal was preferred before Ld.CIT(A), who vide impugned order deleted the penalty by holding that the penalty in respect of addition of unexplained credit of Rs. 1,08,00,000/- cannot be imposed as merely because the claim made by the assessee was not accepted, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd reported in [2019] 189 Taxmann 322 (SC). In respect of pena....