9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... )(c) dated 21.03.2007 and the assessment order made u/s.143(3) dated 18.3.2005 were that the penalty was levied in respect of unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of Rs.3,05,000/- and disallowance of depreciation of Rs.1,12,500/-. The explanation of the assessee in respect of addition u/s.68 was that an advance was received in cash on different dates from one M/s.Harshukhbhai & Co. It was also informed that the entire amount was returned back in cash on different dates without delivery of goods within the Financial Year. In the absence of confirmation, the AO has taxed the same in the hands of the assessee. Next, in respect of disallowance of depreciation, it was noticed that the purchase was made as per the deed dated 10.06.2002. According to A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bank statement to demonstrate that a sum of Rs.4 lacs was paid through cheque dated 24.6.2002 of Karnataka Bank Ltd. Baroda and further a sum of Rs.5 lacs was paid on 11.9.2002 of the said Bank. Ld.AR has also placed on record the income-tax returns where the depreciation was claimed on the said machinery and allowed. Ld.AR has also placed on record the depreciation chart of the block of assets for subsequent years to demonstrate that the machinery in question was duly reflected in the depreciation chart. About the unexplained cash credit u/s.68, ld.AR has drawn our attention on the ledger account of Harshukhbhai & Co. through which it was noticed that on several dates from the month of April-2001 to October-2001 small amounts of Rs.10,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce Waterhouse Coopers Pvt.Ltd. in Civil Appeal No.6924 of 2012 judgement dated 25th September, 2012 that the assessee was not guilty of concealment as prescribed u/s.271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 5. Next is the addition u/s.68 on which the penalty was levied. The undisputed fact is that the party in question was not produced although the sufficient opportunity was granted to assessee. If the impugned amount was received in advance and later on it was returned, then the said party ought to be known to the assessee and thus the assessee was under obligation to furnish the identity, creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction before the Revenue Authorities. In the absence of fulfillment of any of the above requirement, it is difficult ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
