TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (5) TMI 496
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ication of the books it was noticed that a sum of Rs. 5,50,000 was shown as an amount received from Nayamma R. Mullah. When called upon to substantiate the advance, assessee could not furnish any documentary evidence except stating that the said amount was payable towards car purchase. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim for want of proof and also observed that the purchase of car itself is not beyond doubt. 4. Similarly, the assessee was called upon to furnish copies of the bills in support of additions made to fixed assets. Vide letter dated 20.12.2005 assessee's representative furnished some bills. But bills in respect of studio equipment worth Rs. 11,00,000 could not be submitted. Vide letter dated 20.12.2005 assessee had withdrawn its claim of depreciation with respect to the studio equipment worth Rs. 11,00,000, accordingly the same was disallowed by the Assessing Officer. For want of proper evidence the Assessing Officer has also made further disallowances and accordingly worked out the total income Rs. 85,44,450. 5. Consequently penalty proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer. We are concerned with the penalty levied consequent to the addition of Rs. 5,50....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....regard the Assessing Officer observed that in the quantum appeal learned CIT(A) noticed that there is no proof with regard to the purchase of car. Even if it is accepted that the car was purchased, it was purchased by utilising loan taken from ICICI Bank Ltd., and the papers relating to the purchase was stated to be available with the bank. The assessee has not furnished any details or contemporaneous evidence to prove that the assessee had purchased the car and the purchases were made not only by taking finance from ICICI Bank but the assessee agreed to pay further sum of Rs. 5,50,000. In the absence of any proof the Assessing Officer concluded that the credit remains unexplained and thus levied penalty. 9. Similarly, claim of depreciation having been withdrawn after commencement of probe by the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer concluded that it was a fit case for levy of penalty. 10. On an appeal filed by the assessee learned CIT(A) affirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer on aforementioned issues. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 11. Learned counsel for the assessee filed a paper book consisting of 25 pages. Adverting our attention to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an amount payable to Nayamma R. Mulla towards purchase of car. Similarly onus is on the assessee to make a proper deduction after thoroughly verifying the record and in the instant case books were thoroughly audited and the assessee claimed deduction on the asset worth Rs. 11,00,000 and the return was processed u/s. 143(1). Even when the case was taken up for scrutiny, by issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act on 25.10.2010, the assessee did not come forward to make a correct claim and thus assessee is barred from filing a revised statement after stipulated period. It was only during the course of inquiry i.e. when the assessee was asked to submit copies of bills in support of addition to fixed assets the assessee had no other alternative but to revise the claim and thus it is a clear case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and provisions of section 271(1)(c) are attracted under the circumstances. It was also contended that if there is a variation between income returned and income assessed, explanation to section 271(1)(c) gets attracted in which event the onus is upon the assessee to prove that the declaration of income on 1.12.2003 was valid and proper and has to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,000 without any satisfactory explanation. Therefore penalty levied by the Assessing Officer vis-à-vis addition of Rs. 5,50,000 is justified. 16. Coming to revised claim of depreciation, it may be noticed that the assessee filed return of income on 1.12.2003 and the return was accompanied with an audit report. To rectify a bonafide mistake, Legislature provided one year time, u/s. 139(5) of the Act, to file revised return. In the instant case the said period ends on 31.3.2005. Return was originally processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act on 12.4.2004. But for the fact that the case was taken up for scrutiny the assessee would not have filed a revised return. In fact, despite taking up the case for scrutiny, by issuing notice on 25.10.2004, the assessee did not change its stand with regard to claim of depreciation and it is only when the assessee was called upon to furnish the bills in support of the addition to fixed asset, vide letter dated 20.10.2005 the assessee-firm had to withdraw its claim of depreciation on the studio equipment worth Rs. 11,00,000. The firm was well aware of the fact that the said equipment was not put to use in the year under consideration. In the letter d....