TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 667
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case that: a. The appellant was not required to file the return under the law as the appellant's income was below the amount not chargeable to tax (Duly submitted by the Appellant vide his submission dated 25 July 2021); b. The appellant has not sold any capital asset during the year; c. The cash deposited of INR 12,51,000/- was out of the surplus withdrawals made from the bank account for the purpose of making payments to the workers under NREGA 3. The Ld CIT(A) have violated the principle of natural justice as no opportunity of being heard was provided to the Appellant on specifically being asked for, therefore, the order should be deleted. 4. That on the facts and in law Ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate that penalty proceedings are separate and distinct from the assessment proceedings, and any additions/enhancements made in the assessment does not ipso-facto warrant levy of penalty. 5. That the appellant craves right to amend add, delete or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal." 3. The brief facts of the case are the Johdinda Bhojpura Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Limited is a Co-operative Society is doing business ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reiterated its arguments in written submission in letter dated 09.02.2021 in page Nos 2 to 5 of the order. The CIT(A) for the reason stated in his appellant order has rejected arguments and submissions made by the assessee. 6. The Ld CIT (A) observed that the assessee has deposited cash into bank account and no explanation has been provided for the same and it is clear that the assessee has failed to justify its contention. Accordingly the penalty has been correctly levied on the cash deposited into the bank account and the same is unexplained as the assessee as furnished inaccurate particulars of income through which reduced the income for tax. The Ld CIT (A) relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008 ) 13 SCC 369 and in the case of CIT Ahmadbad Vs Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd (2010) 189 Taxman 322. Further CIT (A) obesreved that no further cogent evidences arguments have been put forth by the assessee during the course of penalty proceedings and it is quite clear that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and that the assessing officer was justified in levying the penalty u/s 271(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of non disclosing the STCG and has not furnished accurate particulars of his income thereby conceal his income" 1.6 Once all such notices and order came to the knowledge of executives of Sahakari Samiti, the Appellant filed an Appeal before CIT(A) against both the orders i.e. Assessment order and penalty order. 2. CIT Appeal Proceedings 2.1 At the assessment level since no submission was filed, therefore the Appellant furnished all the evidences in relation to the issue before the CIT(A)-3, Jaipur through Form 35 and as per Rule 46A of the Income-tax rules, 1962 [Refer page no. 34 and 37 of PB and Form 35]. As both the appeals i.e. penalty and quantum appeal were pending before the CIT(A)-3 Jaipur, the appellant requested before the CIT(A)-3 through various submissions to adjourn the penalty appeal/ proceedings till the disposal of quantum appeal. [Refer page no. 27 to 29 of PB]. 2.2 Later the case got transferred to National Faceless Appeal centre (NFAC), against which the Appellant furnished a detailed submission and all the documents vide submission dated 22 July 2021, 19 Oct 2021, 08 Feb 2021 [Refer page no 1 to 8 and 30 to 33 of PB] 2.3 In the submission filed on 22 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... bank certificate enclosed 2.5 Post furnishing the above submission, the NFAC did not issued any further notice and straight away passed an order u/s 250 on 26.11.2021. In the order passed the NFAC have mentioned about the submission filed on page 2 to 5 of the order and passed their decision under point 4. wherein: - Some random figure of INR 17,73,675 was mentioned as addition of cash deposit [Para 4.1 of order]; - The NFAC stated that no explanation is provided for cash deposited by the appellant, without even mentioning about all the documents, evidences furnished during the proceedings [Para 4.3 of order] - And at last stated the following under para 4.7: "In view of above facts and that no further cogent evidences or arguments have been put forth by the appellant during the course of appellate penalty proceedings, it is quite clear that the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the Ld. Assessing Officer was justified inlevied the penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act. Thus, the penalty is confirmed." 2.6 The above order passed is completely baseless as all the evidences were furnished by the appellant before the CIT(A)/ NFAC relating to d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed inaccurate particulars of such income. In the present case, the AO passed ex-parte order and has levied penalty for concealment of such income or non furnishing of particulars u/s 271(1)(c). Rightly pointing the issue is that the assessee has not replied or non compliances for the notice issued by the AO, where the penalty should be levied u/s 271(1)(b). 10.2 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in holding that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is liveable. It is submitted that the facts and circumstances of the case that there is neither concealment of income nor furnishing of any inaccurate particulars and hence provisions of section 271(1)(c) is not applicable without considering the evidences furnished before the CIT(A). 10.3 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred upholding the order by the AO, Where the assessee made an attempt to explain and submitted detailed written submissions before CIT(A) and produced the evidences of Bank Accounts, Bank certificate and details of cash deposits also. 10.4 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in relying on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs Dharmendra Texti....