Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (7) TMI 93 - AT - Income TaxAddition of unexplained cash credit under section 68 - Held that:- Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has simply brushed aside the arguments advanced before him by the assessee and his learned Authorized Representative but only relied upon the audit report furnished under section 44AB of the Act and thereby came to a conclusion that the accounts drawn by the assessee is genuine with respect to the stock, however held certain sundry creditors to be bogus without further verification. It would have been proper on the part of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to obtain a remand report from the learned Assessing Officer on the explanation advanced by the assessee before confirming the addition of ₹ 19,39,677/-. At the same time, we are not able to appreciate the conduct of the assessee whose intentions are malafide by furnishing unrealistic statement of accounts intended for different purposes and to gain undue advantage. We are further of the view that no purpose will be solved by remanding the case back to the file of the Assessing Officer because of the long lapse of time. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we are of the considered view that sustaining the addition by 50% of ₹ 19,39,677/- will suffice to meet the ends of justice. - Decided partly in favour of assessee Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Held that:- Since the entire addition has not been conclusively proved and it is based on assumption and not by verification of the explanation presented before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), we are of the considered view that levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act will not be appropriate. While arriving at this conclusion we place reliance in the case of Hari Gopal Singh Vs. CIT [2002 (8) TMI 65 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court ] wherein it was held that the onus to prove there is concealment is on the part of the Department. Therefore, we hereby delete the penalty levied by the learned Assessing Officer which is further confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). - Decided in favour of assessee
|