2022 (5) TMI 1064

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the assessment year 2016-17 u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the 'Act') vide order dated 12.12.2018. The penalty under dispute u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act was levied by the ACIT, Circle-1, Namakkal vide order dated 28.06.2019. 2. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A), NFAC sustaining the levy of penalty by the AO u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on the treatment of income disclosed from 'income from other sources' to unexplained cash credits u/s.68 of the Act and there is no tax sought to be evaded as there is no difference between the returned income and the assessed income. 3. Brief facts are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 21.01.2017 declaring total in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... observing in para 5.3 as under:- "5.3 The appellant has submitted that since the returned income as well as assessed income were same, no penalty can be levied. This contention of the appellant is misplaced. The machinery provisions of the Income Tax Act provide that the minimum penalty levied will be 100% of the tax sought to be evaded or maximum of 300% of the tax sought to be evaded. Since in the present case, as the appellant has tried to pass all his unexplained income under the guise of income from other sources, the A.O has correctly assessed such income as Unexplained income u/s68 of the I.T. Act. This would automatically result in "tax sought to be evaded" as unexplained income u/s 68 of the Act is taxed on a different fo....