TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 516
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') dated 16.09.2016. The assessee has raised the 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 confirming the action of assessing officer in imposing penalty of Rs.1,85,400//- u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2.It is therefore prayed that penalty imposed by assessing officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal s) may please be deleted. 3. Appellant craves leave to ad, alter or delete any grounds(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal." 2. Brief facts of the case are that scrutiny assessm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rately. Therefore, liable for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c). The Assessing Officer levied penalty @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded. The Assessing Officer worked out penalty of Rs.1,85,400/- in his order dated 16.09.2016. 3. Aggrieved by the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c), the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed written submission as recorded in para-5 of the impugned order. In the submission, assessee submitted that he availed unsecured loan of Rs.6,00,000/- from Shri Kishorbhai G Savani who is an agriculturist, Shri Kishorbhai G Savani is not maintaining his books of account and is not required to file return of income as his income below tax limit. During assessment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tive (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 during the assessment, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.6,00,000/- on account of loan received from Shri Kishorbhai G Savani by treating the same as unexplained cash credit and initiated penalty for furnishing in accurate particulars of income. During assessment the assessee furnished copy of bank statement, copy of sales bills of creditor / Shri Kishorbhai G Savani for assessment year 2016-17. The assessee also filed copy of land record in the form of Extract 7/12. The assessee clearly proved the identity and source of income of creditor/Shr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....levy of penalty. To support his contention, Ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. V.L. Balakrishnan (1981) 130 ITR 138 (Mad). Ld. AR for the assessee also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anantharam Veersinghaiah & Co. Vs. CIT 123 ITR 457 (SC) and the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rawalpindi Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. 125 ITR 243 (All). 5. In alternative submission, Ld. AR of the assessee submits that in the show cause notice, the Assessing Officer has not struck out the inappropriate portion, wherein the penalty is levied on furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. Therefore, the Asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities. We have also deliberated on various case laws relied upon by Ld. AR of the assessee before us and the lower authorities. We find that during the assessment, the Assessing Officer made addition under section 68 of Rs.6,00,000/- on the unsecured loan availed by assessee from Shri Kishorbhai G Savani. Before making addition, the Assessing Officer issued show cause notice to the assessee noted above. The Assessing Officer has noted that assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness of creditor and made addition under section 68 by treating the unsecured loan as unexplained cash credit. We find that no appeal in quantum assessment was filed by assessee. Thus, the addit....