9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1079X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, these judgments are of no help to the assessee. As far as the last judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts P.Ltd. [ 2010 (3) TMI 19 - SUPREME COURT] the assessee has made some claim which was found to be not admissible as per the position of law. The assessee has not withheld information. Hon ble Supreme Court was of the view that unless some claim is made, how the assessee would explain his case before tax authorities. In the present case no such facts are there. The assessee has not made any claim admissible in law, which has been disallowed on account of difference of opinion between him and the tax authorities. Similarly, as far as the facts of other three decisions are concerned, they are quite distinguishable with the facts in the present case. Therefore, we do not find any error in the order of the ld.CIT(A) and the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. - ITA No.2469/Ahd/2013 - - - Dated:- 21-11-2019 - Shri Rajpal Yadav, Judicial Member And Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Ms.Urvashi Shodhan, AR For the Revenue : Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.DR ORDE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prove that explanation put-forth by the assessee that it has received share application, was false. In support of her contentions, he relied upon the following decisions: 1. Judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of National Textiles 2 Judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of Jalaram Oil Mills 3 Judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of Amrut Tubewell Co. 4 Order of Hon'ble IT AT, Ahmedabad in case of Manish Organics India Ltd. 5 'Order of Hon'ble IT AT, Ahmedabad in case of Bhagyodaya Group Co-op Cotton Sale, Ginning Pressing Society Ltd. 6 Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. Copies of these decisions have been placed on record. 5. The ld.DR, on other hand relied upon orders of Revenue authorities. He contended that the assessee failed to give any explanation what to talk of plausible explanation. Hence, it is a fit case, where with the help of Explanation-1 of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, penalty deserves to be imposed up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntification of the penalty is concerned, the penalty imposed under this section can range in between 100% to 300% of the tax sought to be evaded by the assessee, as a result of such concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The other most important features of this section is deeming provisions regarding concealment of income. The section not only covered the situation in which the assessee has concealed the income or furnished inaccurate particulars, in certain situation, even without there being anything to indicate so, statutory deeming fiction for concealment of income comes into play. This deeming fiction, by way of Explanation I to section 271(1)(c) postulates two situations; (a) first whether in respect of any facts material to the computation of the total income under the provisions of the Act, the assessee fails to offer an explanation or the explanation offered by the assessee is found to be false by the Assessing Officer or Learned CIT(Appeal); and, (b) where in respect of any fact, material to the computation of total income under the provisions of the Act, the assessee is not able to substantiate the explanation and the assessee fails, to prove that s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompany in his books of accounts is nothing but the unaccounted income of the assessee brought in the books of accounts in the form of share application money. 15. Our view is fortified by the fact that the alleged share applicants who are agriculturists have applied for the shares of an unlisted company from which they are not going to derive any benefit whatsoever in future by the appreciation in the market value of the shares. 16. In our considered opinion, in the context of the preponderance of probabilities, the impugned share application money is not genuine and the assessee has grossly failed in discharging the initial burden cast upon it by the provisions of Section 68 of the Act. We, therefore, decline to interfere with the findings of the First Appellate Authority. 17. Before parting, the ld. counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the ld. CIT(A) given for A.Y. 1990- 91. It is the say of the ld. counsel that in earlier assessment year also, additions were made u/s. 68 of the Act in respect of moneys received from shareholders and the same has been deleted by the ld. CIT(A) in Appeal No. CAB/XVI/3/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
