TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 519
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rred to as "the Act" for short] pertained to the Asst.Year 2010-11. 2. The grounds raised in the appeal are as under: "1. The penalty order passed un/s.271(1)(c) of the IT At by the AO and confirmed by the first appellate authority is bad in law and deserved to be uncalled for. 2. The AO has erred in law and on facts and the first appellate authority in confirming the same on levying penalty of Rs.7,06,246/- under section 271(1)(c). Same deserves to be deleted." 3. As transpires from orders of the authority below, penalty for concealing/ furnishing inaccurate particulars of income as per provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the present case has been levied on an addition made to the income of the assessee and confirmed by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty, including the assessee. Evidences to this effect, reflecting the payment of the amounts from the bank accounts of the co-owners was also filed. That investment of Rs.10 lakhs , stated to be out of the assessee's bank account, was confirmed and accepted by the Revenue; that with respect to the payment of Rs.22,85,528/- the fact that payment was made by other co-owners through banking channels as evidenced by the assessee was not disputed; that the only reason for making the addition in the hands of the assessee was that the explanation of the assessee that the co-owner had made payment out of amount advanced by the assessee of Rs.24 lacs was found unacceptable on the ground that the said amount was advanced in the preceding year. 6. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....account of unexplained investments of Rs.22,85,528/- in the hands of the assessee ,on which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied, needs to be appreciated to adjudicate the issue of levy of penalty. The assessee was noted to have made investment during the impugned year in immoveable property of an amount of Rs.1,08,85,528/- jointly with Sh.Rashmikant C. Patel and Chandrikaben R. Patel. The assessee's purported share in the property was 50%i.e Rs.54 lacs. The AO was satisfied with the source of Rs. 10 lacs invested b y the assessee. The balance of Rs.44 lacs was added to the income of the assessee as unexplained investment in the absence of any explanation of the source thereof. Before the ld.CIT(A) in quantum proceedings, the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tum proceedings dated23- 03-2016, placed before us in P.B 1-70 ,at para 3.10.2 is as under: "3.10.2. The facts of the case, submissions of the appellant and remand reports from the A.O. are considered. The appellant has mainly contended that source of the investment is explained and recorded in the books of accounts. It is also the contention of the appellant that out of total investment an amount of Rs.76 lakhs was made in earlier years and representing opening investment , therefore, cannot be considered for the purpose of invoking provisions of Section 69 of the Act. The AO has considered investment of Rs. 10 lakhs as explained and made addition of balance amount of Rs.44 lakhs on the ground that the assessee has failed to explain the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee could not substantiate with supporting evidences the source of investment of Rs. 54 lacs made in the said immoveable property. The assessee could only explain the payment of Rs. 10 lacs made on 27th October, 2009. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has added Rs. 44 lacs to the total income of the assesse as unexplained investment made by the assessee in the immovable property. At the time of appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee claimed that he had paid Rs. 24 lacs by cheque dated 7th October, 2008 to one of the co-owner Shri Rashmikant C. Patel who had made further payment to the land owner from his bank account. The assessee has also submitted that out of total investment of Rs. 1,08,85,528/- payment of Rs. 76 ....