TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 852
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....below erred in levying/confirming Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) without considering the facts of the case and not giving proper opportunity of being heard. Rs. 2,16,300/- 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. For the above and other grounds and submission that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal. Rs. 2,16,300/- 4. The appellant prays that this authority be pleased to allow the appeal and set aside the order of the Learned Assessing Officer and CIT order, or pass any such orders as this authority deems fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. Rs. 2,16,300/- Total tax effect u/s. 271(1)(c)- Rs. 2,16,300/- Brief fac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly missed out and it was not a deliberate act. Ld. CIT(A) held this submission/explanation of assessee to be self-serving and upheld the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. While considering the appeal against penalty under section 271B, Ld. CIT(A) observed that assessee had not filed any material evidencing support of the claim that he was not well and was hospitalised. Ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty levied under section 271(1) (c) of the Act. 7. Aggrieved by orders passed by Ld. CIT(A) assessee is in appeal before us. ITA No. 259/B/2020 8. He submitted that assessee was a contractor registered with PWD Department of government of Karnataka. It was submitted by Ld. AR that, assessee had undertaken private contract, ag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be bad. Ld. Sr. DR taking support of decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra), argued that the manner in which penalty has been initiated and levied in the present facts of the case is supported by view taken by Hon'ble Court. 11. We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. 12. One of the issues involved in this appeal is whether, Ld. AO without striking out one of the limb i.e. furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income can levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the act. Ld. AR is reliance on decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory reported in 359 ITR ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n account of unaccounted contract receipts amounting to Rs. 7 lakhs. By producing bank accounts, assessee had displaced the presumption that failure to return the correct income had arisen from any fraud or gross or willful neglect. We also note that no specific addition had been made in the assessment order on this account. We do not find any discrepancy having noted by Ld. AO in respect of the 2 accounts except for the fact that assessee had not maintained accounts in respect of the 2 bank accounts declared subsequently. 15. Under such circumstances we do not find assessee to be liable for concealment under section 271(1)(c) as during assessment proceedings assessee demonstrated his bona fides. Further assessee has also not filed any app....