9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 719X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty levied by the Ld. Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 2,41,517/-. The appellant prays that the same may please be deleted. The Appellant craves to add, alter, amend or omit any of the grounds of appeal before or during the hearing of the appeal." 2. Brief ly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of dealing in shares and securities and is also a director in a company, viz. M/s. Bansal Sharevest Services Pvt. Ltd. ('BSSPL'). Search and seizure action u/s. 132(1) of the 'Act' was conducted at the premises of M/s. BSSPL at 1502/1503, Safalya, Tarabaug Lovelane, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Sec. 69, while for the balance addition of Rs. 3 lac was related by him to the other years. 3. The A.O after culminating the assessment proceedings issued a show cause notice u/s. 271(1)(c) r.w.s 274 to the assessee, calling upon him to explain as to why penalty may not be imposed on him for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income/concealment of taxable income. The assessee submitted before the A.O that as the addition in respect of the gift transactions had been made in his hands, not for the reason that the gift transactions were found to be bogus, but rather for the reason that he had failed to comply with the directions of the A.O and therein substantiate the veracity of the gift transactions to the satisfaction of the A. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the hands of the assessee. 4. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the A.O imposing penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) after deliberating at length over the contentions of the assessee in the backdrop of the facts of the case, therein being of the view that the assessee had failed to come forth with a bonafide explanation and had failed to disclose all the facts which were material for the computation of his total income, therefore upheld the penalty imposed by the A.O. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) had therein carried the matter in appeal before us. We have heard the authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en in order to put to rest certain doubts as regards the genuineness of the said transactions, therefore directed the assessee to produce the respective parties for examination. We find that it remains as a matter of fact that the A.O had hardly afforded a period of 5 days to the assessee for producing the aforesaid parties for examination, and on account of failure on the part of the assessee to do the needful within the said short period, therefore added the aforesaid amount to the income of the assessee. We though are not oblivious of the fact that during the course of the appellate proceedings the CIT(A) had afforded an opportunity to the assessee to produce the respective donors for necessary examination, so that the genuineness of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had failed to prove the genuineness of the gift transactions and therein discharge the onus as stood cast upon him, but then in the backdrop of the aforesaid factual matrix, it would be wrong for us to conclude that the assessee had absolutely failed to lead any evidence in support of his explanation that the amounts so received by him were by way of gift transactions. We are of the considered view that though the failure on the part of the assessee to prove the genuineness of the aforesaid transactions and substantiate the financial credibility of the respective donors to the satisfaction of the A.O by producing the respective parties for examination before him, as directed, therein justifiably support the addition of the aforesaid amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay in the case of CIT Vs. Upendra V. Mithani (ITA 'L' Nos. 1860 of 2009), dated 05.08.2009, wherein the Hon'ble High Court had observed as under:- "The issue involved in the appeal revolves around deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. The Tribunal has concurred with the view taken by the Commissioner of Income Tax (A). The Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has rightly taken a view that no penalty can be imposed if the facts and circumstances are equally consistent with the hypothesis that the amount does not represent concealed income as with the hypothesis that it does. If the assessee gives an explanation which is unproved but not disproved, i.e. it is not accepted but circumstances do not lead to the reasonabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
