9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve by the Assessing Officer. The case laws relied by the assessee are not squarely applicable on the facts of the assessee's case. Therefore, we uphold the order of the ld CIT(A). - Decided against assessee - ITA No. 68/JP/2013 - - - Dated:- 12-2-2016 - R. T. Meena, AM And Laliet Kumar, JM For the Appellant : Shri Shravan Kr Gupta, Adv For the Respondent : Shri Kailash Mangal, JCIT ORDER Per T. R. Meena, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 26/11/2012 of the learned C.I.T.(A), Ajmer for A.Y. 2004-05. The sole ground of appeal is as under:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming penalty of ₹ 123600/- U/s 271(1)(c) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... party. The assessee had discharged his onus of proof of transaction and repayment of loan, which had duly been debited in the account of Smt. Veena Khatri. There is no concealment in the above said transactions. Merely because it has been disallowed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld CIT(A), does not mean that the assessee has concealed any particulars of income. There being nothing to suggest that the assessee had concealed particulars of income. After considering this reply, the Assessing Officer has held that the assessee could not produce the confirmation from the cash creditor and other supporting evidence lime PAN, income tax return, computation to prove genuineness of the transaction. The addition has been confirmed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are to be proved in respect of cash credits i.e. identity and creditworthiness of cash creditor and genuineness of the transaction have been proved. Further the assessee's contention that there has to be conscious concealment on the part of the assessee for the levy of the penalty is not acceptable as it has been held in the case of Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 166 Taxman 65 (SC) that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is civil liability and for attracting such civil liability willful concealment is not an essential ingredient. In view of above discussion, penalty of ₹ 1,23,600 levied by the AO is confirmed and this ground of appeal is dismissed. 5. Now assessee is in appeal before us. The ld AR of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontrol of the assessee, it cannot be said that the said loan was bogus nor both the lower authorities has stated the same. He further relied on the following decision:- (i) Mod Creations (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO 62 DTR 259 (Del). (ii) Uphar Aloys (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO 37 CCH 154 (Del) (2013). (iii) CIT Vs Dharampal Premchand Ltd. 329 ITR 572 (Del). (iv) CIT Vs. M.M. Gujamgadi 290 ITR 160 (Kar.). (v) CIT Vs Careers Education Infotech (P) Ltd. 336 ITR 0257 (P H). (vi) CIT Vs Sas Pharmaceuticals 335 ITR 259 (Del). He further argued that the Assessing Officer had levied penalty for concealment of income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income and only on the basis of finding recorded by the body of assessment order, both the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
