9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1018X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nstance of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. For addition u/Section 41(1) both the authorities below hold that the assessee did not file any details of the relevant creditor in order to prove its liability by way of verification. Shri Madhusudan (learned Senior Departmental Representative) strongly argues that the assessee failed to discharge even its prima facie onus alike Section 68 addition so as to claim its sundry credit liability. We find no force in this plea as the assessing authority invoked Section 41(1) of the Act thereby treating assessee’s liability to have been ceased to exist as the same was more than a year old. We observe in these peculiar facts that the said liability claim already stood accepted earlier s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gus ones. The assessee thereafter filed confirmation of M/s. Mahesh Timbermart Pvt. Ltd., Gandhidham only. The Assessing Officer then noticed assessee s above stated gross sum included new creditors of ₹ 49,35,116/- and the remaining parties involved total sum of ₹ 38,13,206/- to be older than a year. The Assessing Officer then completed a regular assessment invoking Section 68 addition of unexplained credit entry to the tune of ₹ 45,49,317/- as the assessee had proved its claim qua the remaining sum of ₹ 3,37,799/-. He then invoked Section 41(1) of the Act for the balance amount of ₹ 38,13,206/- by concluding that the same had not been proved by way of furnishing all relevant details. The Assessing Officer acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ditions made by the AO have become final. During penalty proceedings also appellant did not submit any information relating to the creditors and therefore the additions made an account of unexplained credits and cessation of liabilities were not explained at all. Even during appeal hearing, appellant submitted no information about the creditors. Only legal submissions were made. Even assessing officer mentioned in the assessment order that authorized representative of the appellant admitted that no further Retails and confirmation can be furnished by the assessee in the case of these creditors. In view of this, it is clear that appellant did not discharge its primary onus by furnishing confirmation and other details, accordingly, ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re and source thereof, appellant can't take help of the decisions wherein primary onus was discharged with regard to the genuineness of the credits. Considering these facts, penalty is leviable on the additions in respect of unexplained credits and cessation of liabilities. The penalty levied by the AO is accordingly confirmed. 4. Heard both sides reiterating their respective stands. Case file perused. There is no dispute that the impugned penalty involves two addition components of Section 68 and Section 41(1) of the Act (supra). We quote the relevant facts narrate in the preceding paragraph. The assessee could not file even a single relevant particular of its creditor so far as Section 68 addition amount of ₹ 45,97,317/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
