9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 632X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the partnership firm and therefore was no illegality in the orders of the authorities below as well in the present case. No illegality in the orders of the authorities below as well as in the impugned order of the Tribunal and since the assessee/ appellant has failed to prove the creditworthiness of the partners as well as failed to place any evidence in support of its contention in respect of the issues which are raised before the Tribunal, therefore, we find no error in the order of the ld. CIT(A). The order of the ld. CIT(A)is confirmed and the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed as the ld. CIT(A) has recorded a categorical finding of facts. Following the case of Jagmohan Ram Chandra Vs. CIT [ 2004 (8) TMI 46 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] and Smt. Sheela Ahuja [ 2017 (11) TMI 686 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] we hereby upheld the order the ld. CIT(A) and confirmed the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Decided against assessee. - I.T.A No.349/Agra/2018, S.A. No.06/Agra/2018 (in I.T.A No. 349/Agra/2018) - - - Dated:- 12-9-2019 - Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member, And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri R. K. Agarwal Ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal in limine by holding that no appeal is maintainable since the assessment order was passedon the confession of the assessee. vide ITA No. 189/Agra/2011 dated 12.08.2015 this bench has restored the matter back to AO holding that since the additions are based on the confession of the counsel of the assessee without investigation the facts, AO should make the assessment again after affording opportunity to the assessee.In the reassessment made by AO assessee again could not explain the source of capital introduction of ₹ 92,00,000/- and hence the same was again treated as unaccounted income of the assessee under section 68 and added to the total income of the assessee. 4. In the 2nd round of assessment,the assessee again could not explain the source of capital introduction of ₹ 92,00,000/- and hence the same was again treated as unaccounted income of the assessee under section 68 and added to the total income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by such addition in total income of the assessee, assesses has filed this appeal before CIT(A) -II, Agra in 2nd round where she has after going through the affidavit of both the partners regarding sour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, these kind of deposits could not have been in the nature of any land advance. In spite of providing opportunities at both assessment and appellate stage, assessee could not produce any agreement to sell, name and address of the purchaser, existence and details of any land that was proposed to be sold. 5.5 In this connection, in the case of Venus Auto which is a sister company of the assessee, it is seen that in the A.Y. 2009-10 that is the same assessment year the transactions that were explained by the assessee before the AO were that the M/s Venus Auto has transferred ₹ 62,00,000/- to M/S Krishna Bulk Movers (P) Ltd. and thereafter M/s Krishna Bulk Movers (P) Ltd. has transferred this amount to M/s Verma Service Station (P) Ltd. Copy of all these accounts were available in the case of Venus Auto and hence, assessee's contention that this amount has now come from some advance for land sold seems to be after thought not supported by any documentary evidence. Under these circumstances, AO is correct in holding these credits as unexplained in the hands of the assessee and imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(C). In this case assessee has made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... believed then it is to be added as an income under section 68 of the Act in the hands of the firm. Similarly, if an assessee, who is a partner in the partnership firm, has made investments which are not recorded in the books of account maintained by him for any source of income and the explanation given by the partner or individual regarding source of deposits is disbelieved, then such deposits which are invested can be brought to tax as income from undisclosed sources. 8. Heard the rival submissions for the par ties and perused the orders passed by the assessing authority, order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and theTribunal order, and the material on record. Considering the additional evidence furnished by the ld. AR for the Assessee the addition has been confirmed by us in the quantum appeal in the present case in ITA No. I.T.A No. 212/Agra/2018 order dated 11/09/2019. 9. On perusal ofbalance sheet (APB, Pg. No. 7) filed as documentsof additional evidence, it is noted that the sale value of the land was shown at ₹ 10 lacs in the balance sheet whereas advance of Rs . 62,00,000/- was shown to be received against the said lan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Verma Service Station Pvt. ₹ 10 lacs 11. From the balance sheet (APB page no. 7), it can be seen that assessee has shown an agricultural land for ₹ 10,07,560/- as shown on the asset side of the balance sheet whereas he has shown advances against the sale of land at ₹ 68,50,000/-. Thus, there was a discrepancy in the amount of consideration shown against the sale of agricultural land which cannot be more than ₹ 10,07,560/- and thereby the difference of Rs.₹ 68,50,000/- (-) ₹ 10,07,560/- = ₹ 58,42,440/- remained unexplained liability against sale of land as per the balance sheet in the hands of the assessee. 12. We are inclined to agree with the finding of the ld. CIT(A) logically supported with due reasoning by the Ld. DR that the assessee has itself conceded in the original assessment that ₹ 92,00,000/- andadded as unexplained income in respect of unexplained capital deposit made by the partner and that in the 2nd round of assessment proceeding s in compliance to the directions of the Agra Bench, the assessee failed to explain source of deposit of partners capital of ₹ 92, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credits as unexplained in the hands of the assessee and the ld. CIT(A)was justified in confirming the addition as unexplained capital of the assessee firm u/s 68 of the Act and so the Tribunal confirmed the addition of ₹ 92,00,000/- is confirmed as unexplained capital u/s 68 of the Act in the hands of the firm. 15. The Assessing Officer has to satisfy whether the penalty proceedings be initiated or not during the course of the assessment proceedings and the Assessing Officer is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing. The scope of section 271(1)(c) has also been elaborately discussed by this court in Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC) ; [2008] 13 SCC 369 and CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal [2009] 317 ITR 1 (SC) ; [2009] 9 SCC 589. (Emphasis supplied). The Assessing Officer, in our view, has recorded a categorical finding that he was satisfied that the assessee had concealed true particulars of income and is liable for penalty proceedings under section 271 read with section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 16. Taking into consideration the above facts vis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
