TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is shown that the assessee has any other income routed through the bank. From the above, it can be inferred that the creditor is a man of means and the creditworthiness of the lender is not substantiated by furnishing the required details as called for by the Assessing Officer as per section 68 of the Income tax Act. In our considered view, the AO is justified in making the addition and ld CIT(A) is fully correct in confirming the same. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - HELD THAT:- Penalty order is based on furnishing of inaccurate particulars but the notice is not specifying exactly on which limb the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated. From the notice dated 12.3.2014 produced during the hearing, it can be seen that the Assessing Officer w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt year 2011-12. 3. In ITA No.51/CTK/2016, although the assessee has raised several grounds of appeal but the sole issue involved is that the ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 8,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act. 4. Facts in brief as emanated from the orders of lower authorities are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing officer noticed that the assessee has shown unsecured loans of ₹ 43,04,368/-. The Assessing Officer required the assessee to furnish its bank accounts and the details of all the loan creditors with sources of cash deposits in their bank accounts. Before the AO, the assessee furnished its bank statement with bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r has admitted to the fact that the assessee has filed the copy of bank account of the loan creditor Shri Basanta Bihari and explained that the transaction was through cheque. He submitted that the creditor Shri Basanta Bihari is one of the Director of the assessee company having PAN No.AGNPB 9280 C and regularly filing the income tax returns showing the source of income. Ld counsel submitted that the loan transaction of ₹ 8,00,000/- is not a single transaction but Shri Bihari has given advances on several occasions to the assessee being a Director of the assessee company. Thus, the assessee discharged its burden and it was thereafter for the Assessing Officer to show by bringing material on record that cash creditor was not genuine o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as filed total gross income at ₹ 3,94,788/- and after deduction under Chapter VI-A of ₹ 1,00,000/-, the total income of the assessee comes to ₹ 2,94,788/-. Further, if the household expenditure of the creditor for the said assessment year is taken into consideration then, there will be no surplus in hand to advance the money to the assessee. On other hand, the assessee was unable to submit that there is any interest has been paid on this loan to the lender in the impugned year or in the subsequent year. It was for the assessee to prove that the loan creditor had advanced the money out of the income of any other source like his capital i.e. saving of earlier years or receipt from any other person from which the loan credito ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued u/s 274 did not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it was for concealing the particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, the penalty order passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in pursuance to the said notice deserves to be set aside. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory reported in 359 ITR 565 and also the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in case of CIT Vs. SSA s Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 Taxman.com 248 (SC). The Ld. AR accordingly submitted that the order of the CIT(A) be set aside and the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) be deleted. 12. On the other hand, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
