2013 (5) TMI 607

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 16.10.2012 passed by the ld. CIT(A), Muzaffarnagar for the Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. The ground raised in the appeal is in respect of levy of penalty of Rs.1,75,000/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter). 3. The brief facts of the case are that originally the A.O. made addition of two items, Rs.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e I.T.A.T while deciding issue related to additions of Rs.3,50,000/- observed that the explanation submitted by the assessee is not plausible one. The I.T.A.T. agreed with the submission of the ld. Departmental Representative that in a running business nobody will believe that the assessee has liquidated all the advances. However, the I.T.A.T. was of the view that at the most the assessee could ha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nexplained/bogus, burden is on the assessee to prove that there was no concealment of income or of true particulars. In my firm view, the angle of concealment is more than established, and, therefore, the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is upheld in principle. Without prejudice to the above, admittedly the additions of Rs.1,79,878/- and Rs.1,75,000/- have been deleted by the Hon'ble ITAT,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....enses furnished by the assessee was not found false by the A.O. The ld. Authorised Representative in support of his contention relied upon the following decisions:- i) Shree Nirmal Commercial Limited vs. CIT, 218 CTR (Bom) 581 ii) CIT vs. V. Ramaswamy Naidu, 208 ITR 377 (Mad) iii) CIT vs. Jalaram Oil Mills, 253 ITR 192 (Guj) iv) CIT vs. Dharamchand L. Shah, 204 ITR 462 (Bom) v) Order of I.T.A....