TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1024X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as engaged in joint venture of developing the project on the land which was allotted from Surat Municipal Corporation. This is an admitted fact that the assessee has not carried out any business during the year under consideration. No evidence on record has been brought that the assessee had earned income during the year. It is rightly found by the tribunal that the assessee has duly discharged its burden of proof. In the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rohini Builders reported in [2001 (3) TMI 9 - GUJARAT High Court ], amounts were received by the assessee by account payee cheques and initial burden of proving the credits was discharged. It is held that the assessee need not prove the source of the credits and the fact tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee and determined total income of the assessee at ₹ 1,55,50,000/- vide order dated 29.4.2004. The Assessing Officer also directed initiation of penalty proceedings to levy penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 29.4.2004, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A), which was partly allowed vide order dated 30.11.2004 in favour of the assessee and CIT (A) deleted addition of ₹ 35 Lacs out of ₹ 1,55,50,000/-. 4. Feeling aggrieved by order of CIT (A) confirming the addition of ₹ 1,20,50,000/- made by Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal being ITA No.380/Ahd/2005. 5. By order dated 15.6.200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6,00,000 20.07.1999 6 Chunilal B. Savalia 5,00,000 20.07.1999 7 Chandrakant C. Soni 5,50,000 20.07.1999 8 Dhara Gems 5,00,000 20.07.1999 9 Ganesh N. Prajapati 5,60,000 20.07.1999 10 Heena Diamond 5,00,000 20.07.1999 11 Hirabhai Dalichand Patel 5,60,000 20.07.1999 12 Jaysukh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emand notice and challan and to charge interest under Section 234B of the Act. He also directed to issue penalty notice under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act. 9. Mr.Sudhir Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant contended that amount which has been referred to in the table given above is the source of income of the assessee and, therefore, the Assessing Officer, after giving elaborate reasons, directed to initiate the proceedings as above. He also submitted that the Assessing Officer has discussed the evidence with regard to all these 23 entries, therefore, the Tribunal could not have passed the impugned order in favour of the assessee. 10. Mr.R.K.Patel, learned advocate for the respondent-assessee supported the impugned order and sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
