Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2010 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (6) TMI 522 - ITAT, AHMEDABADPenalty – Addition of income - Bogus purchase – Unexplained cash credit – Brokerage expense - In respect of bogus purchases of Rs.3,75,984 the assessee claimed that these purchases are made from M/s Chandrakala Prints for Rs.1,92,036/- and from M/s Neminath Silk Mills for Rs. 1,83,948 - Payments were claimed to have been made through account payee cheques - On perusal of purchase and sale bills, it is seen that there is no difference in the quantity and quality of goods and contention of ld. AR is found to be correct - it is also seen that assessing officer has also failed to bring any evidence on record which indicates that assessee has not made purchases from above two parties - Accordingly that addition made by the AO is hereby deleted Regarding bogus gift - After carefully going through the observations of the AO and the arguments of ld. AR, it is seen that all the donors who made gifts to assessee’s minor sons are found to be parties of no means by the ld. AO - It is also seen that assessee has failed to produce the donors before AO and thus we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of CIT(A) and accordingly the addition is confirmed – Appeal is dismissed In respect of bogus expenses - After considering the entire facts of the case, we are of the opinion that ld. CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the action of AO in making addition as assessee has failed to prove the nature of service rendered by the broker - Thus, the genuineness of expenditure is not fully verifiable and therefore, addition is confirmed Regarding penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - The case of the assessee is also covered in terms of Explanation -1(B) if we treat that explanation furnished by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings as the explanation assessee could have furnished in response to show cause notice before levy of penalty - It was held that explanation raised rebuttable presumption and the burden which is cast on an assessee is akin to a civil burden which may be discharged on a preponderance of probabilities - S. 271(1)(c) applies where the assessee “has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such in - . In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed
|