9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1958X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evied by ITO, ward-2, Panvel under section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 28-06-2011. 2. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 3,97,180/-. For this assessee has raised the following ground No. 1: - "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding action of the assessing officer in levying the penalty of Rs. 3,97,180/-." 3. At the outset, it is noticed that this appeal was fixed for hearing on earlier occasions but none turned up. Even now, during the course of hearing neither any application for adjournment was filed nor anybody repres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c) entirely indicate the element of strict liability on the assessee for concealment or for giving inaccurate particulars while filing return. (a) Explanation 1 makes it clear that the assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are wholly distinct and independent of each other. (b) Explanation 1 is a rule of evidence. It raises an initial presumption that the additions represent concealed income of the assessee. The initial burden of discharging the onus to rebut the above presumption is on the assessee. In other words, the assessee has to explain that the explanation offered by him about a particular income/expenditure is bonafide and all material to the computation of his income has been disclosed. (c) The burden placed upon the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of the parties. However, the assessee could not prove his claim of repayment with bank extract nor this amount was shown as unpaid in its Balance Sheet. Moreover, it was observed by the AO that TDS was deducted by these parties on these two receipts. Since the argument of the assessee was not accepted by the AO nor the assesses put forth any concrete proof in support of his claim, the said receipts were added by the AO to the income of the assessee. I am therefore in agreement with the view taken by the A.O. 7. In view of the above. I am of the considered view that it is a lit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and for concealing particulars of income to the extent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
