2021 (1) TMI 398

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e case of the assessee in this Miscellaneous Application is that Tribunal has levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act to the tune of Rs. 7,72,888/-, on the basis of the finding given in the quantum proceedings, however, it is well settled that the finding in the quantum proceedings are not conclusive and penalty proceedings are distinct from quantum proceedings therefore penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act should not be levied merely based on quantum proceedings. 3. The Tribunal has levied the penalty in respect of the following loans received by the assessee: Sr. No. Name of the party Disclosed at the time of the survey and included in the revised return Disclosed at the time of the survey and not included in the revised retu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed on the decision of CIT vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals - 355 ITR 0259 (Del.)(HC) wherein it was held that there is no concealment when the income was disclosed in the course of survey. The copies of these decisions were filed at the time of the survey. 5. The ld Counsel further argues that the assessing officer has not levied the penalty for concealment of income but he levied penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income therefore assessing officer was wrong in invoking the Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act and under such circumstances the penalty is not leviable on unexplained cash credit in view of the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of National Textiles vs. CIT - 249 ITR 0125 (Guj.) and CIT vs. Jal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(AP.)(HC) d. CITv/s. Samson Perinchery - Tax Appeal No. 1154 of 2014 (Bom.)(HC) e. CIT v/s. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory & Ors. - 359 ITR 0565 (Kar.)(HC) f. CIT vs. SSA'S Emerald Meadows - SLP No. 11485/2016 (SC) g. CIT vs. SSA'S Emerald Meadows - ITA No. 380 of 2015 (Karn.)(HC) h. Shri Vasantlal pranshankar Rawal vs. ITO-ITANo.1139/Ahd/2016/A.Y.11-12.(Surat)(Trib.) 7. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue vehemently submitted that there is no apparent mistake in the order of the Tribunal. The ld Counsel only did the interpretation of various case laws. The Tribunal has considered all the issues including issues contained in the additional ....