9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 362X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayagada submitted his return in the status of individual by disclosing agricultural income at Rs.2,40,000 & Remuneration received from M/s. Shree Jaganth Cotton Ginnig and Pressing Pvt. Ltd. as director at Rs.28,000. The Assessing Officer in the assessment made u/s. 143 (3)/147 of the I.T. Act for the assessment year under consideration by raising a demand at Rs.15,55,000 basing on two grounds as follows:- (a) That, the addition of Rs.14,50,000 as unexplained investment as a director with M/s. Shree Jagannath Cotton Ginnig and Processing Pvt. Ltd. at Rayagada. (b) That, the addition of Rs.1,05,000 against at Rs.2,40,000 as shown agricultural income with a view of said agricultural land disclosed by the assessee where the surplus from agri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ities below as the assessee has substantiated his bonafideness by disclosing Rs.23.00 lakhs as his share application money with M/s. Shree Jagannath Cotton Ginning & Processing Pvt. Ltd., Rayagada before the Registrar of Companies, Orissa as well as in the return of the said Company, which has once again confirmed by the ld. I.T.A.T. in I.T.A. No.353/CTK/2006, order dtd. 17.07.2007, thereby the bonafideness of the assessee has been proved beyond any doubt. He argued that in order to attract penalty two basic conditions should be satisfied; viz. (i) the assessee has to substantiate its explanation; and (ii) prove its bonafideness. In case any of the two conditions is not fulfilled, no penalty U/s.271(1)(c) is imposable. The learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urnished by the assessee were wrong or false or unearthed any material facts or particulars facts which the assessee did not disclose. In the instant case of the assessee, the assessment order is completely silent regarding any satisfaction of the Assessing officer for initiation of penal proceeding. Hence, the penalty order passed by the Assessing officer ad confirmed by the learned CIT(A) should be quashed. He further submitted that as the penalty proceeding is a quasi-criminal in nature, the burden of proving concealment lies on the department. In the present case, the department has failed to unearth any concealment of income, but harping on the disclosed source of income of Rs.23.00 lakhs as the share application money disclosed before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.4,37,732. This clearly indicates that the estimation cannot be lost sight of on the specific finding of the Tribunal that the estimation was at 3 stages, first at the stage of land holding, second at the stage of expenditure incurred for cultivation and at third stage i.e., yield. All these facts were considered for the purpose of determining the amount available to make investment of Rs.23 lakhs in the share capital. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted a Paper Book contending various documents such as the True copy of the land particulars, copy of assessment order for the Assessment Year 2000-01 made u/s.143(3)/147,copy of appellate order dt.30.10.2006, order of the ITAT dt.17.7.2006 in ITA No.352/CTK/2006, copy of order dt.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
