TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 1223
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of income of Rs. 39,28,400/- on 31.10.2007. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act and income was assessed at Rs. 80,17,360/- + Rs. 6 lacs as agricultural income. The detail of the same is as under : S.No. Nat ure of additi on Amount 1. On account of rent paid Rs. 96,000/- 2. On account of commission Rs.18,50,100/- 3. On account of salary paid to various persons Rs.3,73,500/- 4. On account of unvouched expenses Rs.17,69,360/- 5. Agriculture Income Rs. 6,00,000/- 3. There was a search on the business premises and residential premises of Shri S.P. Goyal on 27.09.2007. Shri S.P. Goyal was a commission agent of M/s Sipra Estates Ltd., New Delhi for land deal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er of the ld. CIT(Appeals) is reproduced in the penalty order and according to the findings of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the resultant net addition was worked out to Rs. 22,44,800/-. The Assessing Officer after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee levied the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on addition so maintained by ld. CIT(Appeals) in a sum of Rs. 22,44,800/-. The penalty order was challenged before ld. CIT(Appeals) and various submissions have been made. However, the ld. CIT(Appeals) did not accept contention of the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the assessee because the assessee failed to produce necessary evidences in support of the claim and appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 4. We have heard ld. Represe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ailability of funds, created by the assessee, without any corroborative evidence, to support the same. The AO has been very fair, liberal in conceding expenses, merely on the basis of assertion, made by the assessee. Needless to say that AO issued first notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, on 21.07.2008 and passed the assessment order on 28.12.2009. The AO has afforded proper and reasonable opportunity to the assessee. However, the assessee failed to adduce any evidence, to support his claim of impugned expenses, except filing self-serving and un-corroborative evidence, in the form of fund-flow statement. 9. In the present case, the assessee has made a claim of the impugned expenses, therefore, the onus lies on the assessee to support his claim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of Chuhar Mal V CIT (supra) held that what was meant by saying that Evidence Act did not apply to the proceedings under Income-tax Act,1961, was that the rigors of Rules of evidence, contained in the Evidence Act was not applicable; but that did not mean that when the taxing authorities were desirous of invoking the principles of Evidence Act, in proceedings before them, they were prevented from doing so. It was further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that all that Section 110 of the Evidence Act, 1872 did, was to embody a salutary principle of common law, jurisprudence viz, where a person was found in possessing of anything, the onus of proving that he was not its owner, was on that person. Thus, this principle could be attracted to a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....08.2015 intimating that no penalty order enhancing the amount of penalty have been passed by the Assessing Officer after passing the order by the Tribunal. In view of these facts and circumstances and particularly in view of the order passed by the Tribunal restoring the order of the Assessing Officer, we are of the view that whole complexion of the penalty matter has changed because of the subsequent event i.e. the order passed by the Tribunal. The Assessing Officer considered the penalty matter on the basis of part addition sustained by ld. CIT(Appeals) by applying profit rate of 55%, however, Assessing Officer made specific additions on account of disallowance of various expenses by giving specific findings of fact against the assessee.....