9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e does not lead to assessee is guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income - in favour of assessee. Addition u/s.68 - Held that:- 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 which was not fulfilled by assessee so it is difficult to hold that the transactions was genuine. Primary onus as prescribed u/s.68 has not been discharged by the assessee, thus it is not the case that merely on presumption an addition has been made and penalty proceedings were invoked - against assessee. - I.T.A. No.641/Ahd/2010 - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 002 was furnished. Since the AO has doubted the exact date of purchase whether within the financial year under consideration, hence depreciation was disallowed. In consequence thereof, while levying the penalty, the AO has held that the onus casted upon the assessee was not discharged and no satisfactory explanation was filed to establish the bona fides, therefore the AO was satisfied that the impugned amount of addition represented the concealed income of the assessee. An amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was imposed as concealment penalty. When the matter was carried before the ld.CIT(A), the penalty was affirmed and the assessee s appeal was dismissed. 3. From the side of the assessee, ld.AR Mr. Jamin Gandhi appeared and pleaded that the claim o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e amount being refunded, hence, the said party was not traceable for confirmation purpose. From the side of the Revenue, ld. DR Mr. T. Sankar, Sr. D.R. appeared and supported the levy of penalty. 4. We have heard both the sides. As far as the levy of penalty on the claim of depreciation is concerned, the genuineness of the purchase of the machinery has been established by the assessee. The total amount of the sale consideration of the machinery was paid through cheques as is evident from the bank statements. In the subsequent years, the assessee has furnish the chart of the depreciation and claimed the depreciation which was stated to be allowed by the Revenue Department. Due to this reason, we hereby uphold that the explanation offered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
