TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 242
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct) dated 30.09.2015. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in imposing penalty of Rs. 8,66,167/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. 2. It is therefore prayed that penalty imposed by assessing officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may please be deleted. 3. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeals" 2. Brief facts of the case as gathered from the orders of the lower authorities are that no return of income was filed by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment, the AO passed the order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied penalty @100% of the additions sustained by the ld.CIT(A). The A.O. worked out the penalty of Rs. 8,66,167/- vide order dated 30.11.2015. On further appeal before ld. CIT(A) the action of A.O. in levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was upheld. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before this Tribunal. 4. We have heard the submission of the ld.Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee and ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue and perused the material available on record. The ld.AR of the assessee submits that in the assessment order, the AO made three additions, which were upheld by Ld. CIT(A) in quantum asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....levieable on estimated addition. 6. In support of his submission, the ld.AR of the assessee relied on the decisions of Murarilal R Agarwal IT (SS)A No.573 & 615/Ahd/2012 dated 05.07.2013; Shri Ojas A Mehta in ITA No.296 & 297/Ahd/2013 dated 23.08.2013; National Textiles vs. CIT - 249 ITR 0125 (Guj); CIT vs. Jalaram Oil Mills - 253 ITR 0192 (Guj); Shri Sanjaysingh B.Gohil in ITA No.3024/Ahd/2013 dated 22.03.2017 and Navjivan Oil Mills vs. CIT - 252 ITR 417 (Guja). 7. On the other hand, the ld.Sr.DR for the Revenue supported the order of ld. CIT(A). 8. We have considered the rival submission of both the parties and gone through the order of authorities below. For proper appreciation of facts, the addition made by AO, which were on ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tory. The learned Counsel fairly conceded that only peak credit at Rs. 2, 56, 590 as appearing as on 18. 03. 2008 at Paper Book Page No. 52 can be considered for addition as the assessee has failed to explain the cash deposits appearing in the bank accounts maintained by him with various banks. In view of these facts and circumstances, the AO is directed to consider the peak credits of Rs. 2, 56, 590 for additions as against the entire cash deposits of Rs. 19, 90 400 appearing in various bank accounts. Our above view is also supported by decision of Honourable jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT v. President Industries [2002] 258 ITR 654 (Gujarat) wherein it was held that in the absence of any finding of the mat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eging unexplained transaction of Shares. 10. Facts apropos of this ground are that that the AO noticed that the assessee has made investment of Rs. 3, 05, 420, in shares of TCS Ltd. NALCO. The claim of the assessee that investment in shares was made partly by finance and partly out of sale proceeds of the shares and partly from bank account by way withdrawals by cheque was not find favour of the assessee. 11. In appeal, the CIT (A) observed after going through remand report that the AO has accepted the narrations given by the appellant in respect of nature of cheque/transfer deposits. However, the AO in in the remand report has specifically mentioned that profit element in respect of sale transactions should be enhanced to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Rs. 3,42,400/-, is concerned, we have seen that the A.O. passed the order under section 144 /147, by taking view that the assessee has not filed return of income in response to the notice under section 148. However, before Ld. CIT(A) in penalty appeal the assessee specifically contended that that the addition of Rs. 3,42,400/, consistent of three items, one loan transaction of Rs. 1,05,000/- from Bhavin Desai, Rs. 1,00,000/- from textile trading received through cheque and Rs. 1,37,000/- from textile business which was received in cash. The assessee also filed confirmation of loan and other evidence, the Ld. CIT(A) neither examined such evidences nor gave his finding on such evidence. We are conscious of the fact that this part of add....