TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (11) TMI 401
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nalty proceedings being penalty imposed by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) and this appeal is directed against a separate order of the same CIT(A) dated 12.11.2009. Both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by way of this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. On 14.06.2012 as per the request of the Ld. A.R. dated 13.06.2012, the hearing was adjourned to 30.08.2012 and this date of hearing was pronounced in the court on that date. In spite of this, none appeared on behalf of the assessee on the appointed date of hearing i.e. 30.08.2012 and no request for adjournment has been received and hence, we proceed to decide these appeals of the revenue ex-parte qua the assessee. 3. First, we take up the quantum appeal in I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant received a loan of Rs.21,11,000/- from his HUF through account payee cheques. Also it is clarified that the said HUF had received this money from 12 different HUFs, also through account payee cheques. I find that the appellant has placed on record the confirmation of his HUF, the details of the bank account of his .HUF along with details of land holdings viz. extracts of 7/12 and 8A details. The appellant has also placed on record the confirmations, details of the bank account along with details of land holdings viz. extracts of 7/12 and 8A of the 12 HUFs who had advanced money to the appellant's HUF. So in the present case, the appellant has not only proved the immediate source of the credit but also the source of the source. All the t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in the case of Pragati Cooperative Bank as reported in 278 ITR 170. Ld. D.R. could not controvert these findings of Ld. CIT(A) and hence, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. 7. In the result, quantum appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 8. Now, we take the revenue's appeal in respect of penalty proceedings i.e. I.T.A.No. 539/Ahd/2010. The grounds raised by the revenue are as under: "1. The Ld, CIT(A)-XX, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in canceling the penalty of Rs.5,72,000/- levied u/s. 271E of the I.T. Act, 1961, without properly appreciating the facts of the case and the material brought on record by the AO. 1.2 In doing so, the Ld, CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he submissions of the Ld. D.R. and have gone through the orders of authorities below. We find that in the quantum proceedings, the names of various HUFs form whom the money was received by the assessee as per page 3 -4 of the assessment order are as under: 1. Bhikhabhai Kurjibhai 2. Janakbhai Manjibhai 3. Jivrajbhai Kurjibhai 4. Kishorbhai Manjibhai 5. Lxmanbhai Kurjibhai 6. Manjibhai Kurjibhai 7. Odhavbhai Kurjibhai 8. Paareshbhai Laxmanbhai 9. Sueshbhai Talshibhai 10. Talshibhai Kurjibhai 11. Vinodbhai Bhikhabhai 11. As per para 8 of the assessment order, repayment in cash was made to the following 11 HUFs: 1. Vallabhbhai Kalyanbhai 2. Babubhai Hirjibhai 3. Kalyanbhai Ganeshbhai 4. Babubhai ....