TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1648X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hall have to be looked into in order to decide whether assessee is liable for penalty - Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No. 143/CHD/2016 - - - Dated:- 14-9-2016 - SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri Ashok Goyal,CA For the Respondent : Shri S.K.Mittal,DR ORDER This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of ld. CIT(Appeals)-1, Ludhiana dated 28.12.2015 for assessment year 2008-09 challenging the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act on addition of Rs. 30,40,620/- on account of unexplained cash deposits. The assessee in the grounds of appeal also challenged the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) in not admitting additional evidences as submitted before ld. CIT(Appeals) at the first appellate proceedings. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 30,40,620/- on account of unexplained cash deposit in the bank account. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to provide details of Rs. 30,40,620/- on account of cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted that assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are independent therefore, additional evidences which are vital in nature, may be admitted in the penalty appellate proceedings. It was also submitted that additional evidences depicting the confirmed copies of accounts, bills of transactions with the clients showing their full name and address alongwith PAN cards which have been filed with the prayer for admitting additional evidence, same may be admitted because same would prove the identity of the investors and genuineness of the transaction in the matter and in such circumstances, penalty would not be leviable. The assessee relied upon several decisions in support of the contention. Remand report from the Assessing Officer was called for. The ld. CIT(Appeals), however, noted that the assessee made a request for admission of additional evidences before ITAT in quantum proceedings but the same have not been admitted. The ld. CIT(Appeals), therefore, noted that no reasonable cause is made out for admission of the additional evidences and accordingly, additional evidences filed under Rule 46A were rejected. Penalty was also confirmed by dismissing appeal of the assessee on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndigarh in the case of Jorawar Singh (supra) in which additional evidences have been admitted being relevant. The order is reproduced as under : IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 629/Chd/2016 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Jorawar Singh, S/o Sh.Joginder Singh Village Galedva Tehsil Pehowa District Kurukshetra PAN: ACBPS3332E (Appellant) Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kurukshetra (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal Respondent by : Shri S.K. Mittal, DR Date of hearing : 20.07.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 22.07.2016 ORDER This appeal by the assessee has been directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Karnal dated 5.4.2016 for assessment year 2008-09, challenging the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mukta Metal Works, 336 ITR 555 (P H) admitted the additional evidence being relevant and required to be looked into. The addition was made by the authorities below because the assessee could not produce the complete list of the persons to whom commission was paid and no evidence was adduced in this regard. The assessee has now filed affidavits of nine persons to whom the assessee had paid the commission alongwith list of the parties in respect of whom LIC policies were obtained through the commission agents. These additional evidences are, therefore, relevant and shall have to be looked into in order to decide whether the assessee is able to explain the issue for the purpose of levy of penalty. In this view of the matter, I admit these additional evidences for the purpose of hearing. The contention of the learned D.R. that same additional evidences were not admitted by the CIT (Appeals), has no merit because the assessee did not make any request under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules for admission of the additional evidence. These additional evidences so admitted would have bearing on the issue and could explain the matter in issue with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
