TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1997
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d has erred in law in confirming penalty of Rs. 114525/- imposed by the Assessing Officer U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is wrong and bad in law it did not specify in which limb of sec. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the penalty proceedings has been initiated, i.e. whether for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 2. That without prejudice to the ground No. (1) above on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in confirming penalty of Rs. 114525/- imposed by the Assessing Officer U/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961." 2. The assessee is an individual and carrying on business of purchase and sale of utensils in the name and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment impounded by the Department do not disclose any income of the assessee except on account of stock as on the date of survey. Therefore, the assessee has already declared the additional income of Rs. 92,300/- on account of purchase for the year under consideration while filing the return of income in response to notice U/s 148 of the Act. The AO has made the addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- without having any incriminating material but based on the statement recorded U/s 131A of the Act. The ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that even the AO has not considered the income disclosed by the assessee in the return of income while making the said addition but the addition was made over and above the income disclosed by the assessee in the return....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as relied upon a series of decisions including the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 as well as the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows 73 taxmann.com 241. Thus, the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the penalty levied by the AO is not sustainable in law and liable to be deleted. 4. On other hand, ld. DR has submitted that the assessee did not file any return of income for the year under consideration prior to the survey conducted on 13.02.2008. Even for the other subsequent assessment years the assessee did not file any return of income. On the basis of the incriminating material found during the survey as well as the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on account of the stock found at the shop which was valued at Rs. 12,78,794/-. The stock was considered as purchased during the assessment years 2003-04 to 2008-09. Therefore, it is clear that the surrendered was made by the assessee to cover the unaccounted stock as well as business income for these assessment years including the assessment year under consideration. However, as per inventorization of the stock the unaccounted stock for the year under consideration is only Rs. 92,300/- which was duly disclosed by the assessee in the return of income. The Assessing Officer has made the addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- solely on the basis of the statement recorded U/s 133A of the Act. We find that the said addition is not based on any incriminating....