TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 799
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C)/2016-17 dated 31.01.2017. 2. The only issue in this appeal of the assessee is as regards to the order of the Ld.CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty by the AO u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). The brief facts of the case are that the assessment was framed by the AO u/s.143(3) of the Act and made addition u/s.68 of the Act, amounting to Rs. 33,25,000/- being cash deposits in the Savings Bank A/c No.430887467 maintained with India Bank. The AO also added the unexplained investment u/s.68B of the Act, amounting to Rs. 10,98,274/- by treating the investment of Rs. 18,30,457/- and considering the explanation being his personal saving @ 40%, out of the same i.e. Rs. 7,32,183/- and thereby, adding this amount of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls on record. We find merit in the submissions of the Id. AR. From the cash flow statement submitted by the assessee before the Id. Assessing Officer which is extracted in his order at page Nos. 6 & 7, it is evident that the peak credit and the closing balance of the assessee as on 3.12.2011 is Rs. 15,05,892/- against which there is an opening balance as on 30.4.2010 of Rs. 50,000/-. This shows that the maximum undisclosed income earned by the assessee from his real estate broking business would be Rs. 10,53,262/- [Rs. 15,05,892/- (closing balance) - Rs. 50,000/- (opening balance) - Rs. 4,02,630/- (income already disclosed in the return of income)]. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the addition on account of cash deposits in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evied the penalty on the amount of Rs. 10,20,000/- sustained by the Tribunal u/s.68 of the Act and levied penalty to the extent of 100% being Rs. 2,16,918/- i.e. tax sought to be evaded on the difference amount of Rs. 7,02,000/-. We also noted that in the first round of the appeal in the penalty order before the Ld.CIT(A) in ITA No.202/2016-17/AY 2011-12/CIT(A)-4 dated 23.10.2017, has directed the AO to re-calculate the amount of penalty in terms of Para No.12, which reads as under: 12. Accordingly, the penalty under section 271 (1) (c) has to be worked out on the amount of tax sought to be evaded on the additional income of Rs. 15,50,000/-. The AO had earlier imposed penalty only on the amount of Rs. 3,48,000/-, as mentioned at para 8 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enalty notice u/s.274 cited supra and in view of the above discussions and based on the conspectus of facts obtained in the instant impugned order and which is identical in the case of the instant appellant respectfully following the legal authorities conclusive interpretation of law on the issue at hand, the impugned penalty u/s.27(1)(c) imposed of Rs. 3,00,000/- is directed to be deleted. 6. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee stated that even the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Original Kerala Jewellers in TCA No.717 of 2018, order dated 18.12.2018, wherein, the Hon'ble High Court considering the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, (2013) 359 ITR 565, ....