TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 522
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "(1) The learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the addition of Rs. 8,09,653 on extraneous considerations, and particularly without appreciating that the penalty proceedings are independent proceedings. (2) The learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on addition of Rs. 25,000 in the matter of reconciliation of accounts amongst the appellant and the vendor. (3) On the facts and circumstances of the case, penalty is required to be deleted." 2. Brief facts in the case of assessee, the assessment was finalized under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 29.09.2015. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,000/- from assessee, however, no amount is payable by assessee to them. Thus, no penalty is levieable on this addition as well. The Assessing Officer has not accepted the reply of assessee by taking view that confirmation was received by the party that there was total purchase of Rs. 13,48,577/- and after considering the discount the amount payable comes to Rs. 13,31,120/-, whereas the assessee has shown purchased from this party of Rs. 13,06,120/-.Hence, assessee made unaccounted purchases of Rs. 25,000/-.the reply of the assessee was not accepted by assessing officer. The Assessing Officer levied penalty on both the addition @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded. 3. On appeal before Ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed detailed written submissio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e information supplied by third party. As a matter of fact, the assessee had accounted purchases less by Rs. 25,000/- causing benefit to the revenue, despite the fact that the assessee has been hit by addition and penalty. 5. The copy of submissions were forwarded to the Assessing Officer for seeking his remand report. The Assessing Officer furnished his remand report dated 12.02.2020.The contents of remand report is reproduced by Assessing Officer in para-5.1 of his order. On the addition of unaccounted receipt of Rs. 8.09 lakh, the Assessing Officer submitted that no appeal against the addition of Rs. 8.09 lakh was filed by assessee. Further for AY 2014-15 is completed by making various additions and the assessee has not raised any que....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal. 6. We have heard the submissions of Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) for the assessee and the Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (Sr.DR) for the Revenue and have gone through the orders of authorities below. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee is a contractor for industrial construction sites, the Assessing Officer levied penalty on two additions (i) addition on account of Rs. 8.09 lakh against corresponding TDS reflected in Form Nos.26AS and (ii) on addition on account of purchase of Rs. 25,000/-. On the additions of the ld AR for the assessee submits that immediately coming to know about the difference of Rs. 8.09 lakhs, the assessee instantly offered this amount for taxation. As a matter of fact, the income of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the addition of Rs. 8.09 lakh by taking view that there was difference in the receipt shown by the assessee and the payment/ receipt shown in Form-26AS on account of receipt from Insecticide India Limited. The ld CIT(A) upheld the action of AO by taking view that no appeal was filed by the assessee against such addition. We find that the assessee has no occasion to file appeal, when the assessee himself offered the difference of receipt during the assessment. Before us, the ld AR for the assessee vehemently submitted that the receipt of Rs. 8.09 lakhs has been taxed twice as the same was offered in AY 2014-15, as well as in the year under consideration and that again the assessee should not be saddled with penalty under section 271(1)(c).....