TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1635
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Department u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), dated 17.09.2025,for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: i. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming penalty of Rs. 10,48,200 levied u/s 271(1)(c), which is bad in law and liable to be deleted. ii. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that penalty has been levied merely on the basis of additions/disallowances in the set-aside assessment, inter alia (i) disallowance of professional fees of Rs. 3,85,000 and (ii) disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of Rs. 17,13,766 (alleged TDS default u/s 194(J), and that such disallowance do not automatically warrant penalty u/s 271(1)(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee filed his return of income on 28.03.2019 by reporting total income at Rs. 17,86,790/-,even though the assessment order had been passed much earlier i.e. on 16.11.2018. 4. Pursuant to the directions of the Tribunal, ld. AO took up the assessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 254 and 144Bwhich was completed with total income assessed at Rs. 38,85,466/- as against the returned income of Rs. 17,86,790/- filed on 28.03.2019. In this impugned assessment, the disallowances made are: (i) disallowance of professional fees - Rs. 3,85,000/- (ii) disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - Rs. 17,13,766/- 5. Based on the aforesaid disallowances which were sustained in the hands of the assessee, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c)were initiate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5,000 - 5 Sunayana Sarkar Dasgupta 35,000 - 6 Sonal Enterprises 6,31,790 - 7 Russell Creado 50,000 - Total 60,97,552 6.2. The additions sustained in the impugned assessment relates to parties listed at Sl. No. 2, 5 and 7. 7. Ld. AO issued notices u/s 133(6) to the aforesaid parties. From the replies received, it was noted in respect of Kaarmic Movethat its proprietor Ms. Mithali Sanjay Joshi had submitted that she had not received any such amount from the assessee during the relevant period, rather she claimed that she had provided a friendly loan of Rs. 3 lacs to the assessee for which relevant documentary evidence were placed on record. She had also furnished a ledger ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee by considering that it is a transaction on capital account being a loan received by the assessee and subsequently repaid. He has not disputed on the said transaction to taint it as unexplained cash credit. Since, this aspect of the issue has attained finality, there would not be any occasion for the assessee requiring him to do TDS on this specific transaction and therefore, there cannot be a disallowance to this effect u/s 40(a)(ia) on this amount. This particular transaction is therefore, ruled out for the purpose of imposition of penalty in the present case before us. 7.3. In respect of the other two parties i.e. Sunayana Sarkar Dasgupta and Russell Creado, the first party has replied in response to notice u/s 133(6) that she ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....affidavit which is also reproduced in the same para by the ld. AO. 8.1. On the first contention, both the authorities below have taken note of the factual position that return of income of the assessee for AY 2008-09 had reported gross professional receipts of Rs. 74,71,109/-. Therefore, assessee was liable to tax audit for AY 2008-09 itself. According to them, claim of the assessee that the present year under consideration as the first year for tax audit, thus does not hold good, rendering him liable to comply with the TDS provisions on the payments made by him towards professional fees. 8.2. We note that authorities below have referred only in respect of AY 2008-09 wherein the professional receipt in the hands of the assessee exhaus....