TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 317
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....13. 2. When the matter was called for hearing, nobody appeared from the side of the assessee. The appeal was filed by the assessee in the year 2019 and thereafter the same was listed for hearing on various occasions. But it was found that none of the time anyone appeared from the side of the assessee. Thus, in the absence of any cooperation from the side of the assessee, we decided to proceed with the hearing ex parte to the assessee and after hearing the Revenue. 3. The only effective issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for Rs. 3,46,390/- only. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessee is a partnership firm and engaged in the business of rea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he books of accounts. The AO accordingly held that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income and thus the assessee is liable to the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) read with explanation. Thus, the AO levied penalty of Rs. 3,46,390/- being 100% of the amount of tax being sought to be evaded. 6.2 The learned CIT(A) on appeal by the assessee, also confirmed the levy of penalty by observing as under: "Having considered facts and circumstances the case, I find that impugned penalty has been levied with respect to the addition of Rs. 1121000/- made under section 68 in respect of un-explained cash credits. The relevant facts are that the assessee during assessment proceedings had failed to prove the identity of the credito....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f unsecured loan which was treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and same was also confirmed by the learned CIT (A). The AO also initiated the penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied penalty for furnishing inaccurate particular of income. 10. It is trite of law that the penalty proceedings are different from assessment proceeding. Any addition made under the assessment proceeding will not automatically lead to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particular of income. As such, the AO has to reach at independent finding that the assessee has concealed income or furnished inaccurate particular of income. In holding so we find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon'ble supreme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... true. Therefore, merely an addition made during the quantum proceeding will not attract penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In this regard we find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon'ble supreme court in case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts [2010] 189 Taxman 322/322 ITR 158, in which the Apex Court in regard to the penalty proceedings held as under:- "We do not agree, as the assessee had furnished all the details of its expenditure as well as income in its Return, which details, in themselves, were not found to be inaccurate nor could be viewed as the concealment of income on its part. It was up to the authorities to accept its claim in the Return or not. Merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which c....