TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 475
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and the Assessing Officer issued fresh statutory notice under sections 142 and 143(2) dated December 19, 2006. Again nobody attended on the appointed date, i.e., December 29, 2006. Similarly, so many times, the Assessing Officer adjourned the matter. But none appeared on behalf of the assessee and lastly the Assessing Officer, vide notice dated June 8, 2007 informed the assessee that in case of non-compliance, the case would be decided ex parte. Notice was duly served upon the assessee on June 12, 2007 along with statutory notice under section 142 and the case was fixed for June 28, 2007 and the Assessing Officer framed the assessment under section 144 of the Act, to the best of his judgment, vide assessment order dated July 2, 2007 by making net estimated income amounting to Rs. 25,57,195 mentioned at pages 5 and 6 of the assessment order. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated July 2, 2007, made under section 144 of the Act, the assessee filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who vide order dated March 19, 2008 has written that during the course of appellate proceedings on March 17, 2008, the appellant filed a letter dated March 17, 2008 reques....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is on the assessee to prove the genuineness of credits and justify the expenses claimed in profit and loss account by supplying vouchers. But he failed to discharge his onus in spite of repeated opportunities allowed to him and the Assessing Officer has proposed to pass ex parte assessment under section 144 of the Act. The Income-tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Batala, rejected the contentions raised by the assessee before him and finally held that the assessee has failed to discharge its onus to prove creditworthiness of the depositors and the addition was rightly made under section 68 of the Act and he is fully satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income and liable to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act at 100 percent of the concealed income, i.e., amounting to Rs. 7,55,308 vide his order dated March 13, 2009 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who vide impugned order dated May 31, 2011 allowed the appeal of the assessee and cancelled the penalty in dispute. Now, the Revenue is aggrieved by the impugn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 10,000, which the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has deleted on the appeal filed by the assessee by relying upon various decisions of the courts, mentioned as under : (i) Sh. Bodh Raj Chopra (HUF) v. ITO [2008] 36 IT Rep 595 (ITAT, Asr) ; (ii) Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC) ; (iii) CIT v. Metal Products of India [1984] 150 ITR 714 (P&H) ; and (iv) Harigopal Singh v. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 85 (P&H). In view of the above submissions, Sh. Satish Gupta, learned counsel for the assessee prayed that the appeal filed by the Revenue may be dismissed. He has also filed paper book containing pages 1 to 145. We have heard both parties and perused the relevant records available with us especially the impugned order passed by the learned first appellate authority, along with the appellate order passed under section 264 of the Act, as well as orders of the learned first appellate authority deleting penalty levied in the case of the assessee under section 271(1)(b) of the Act along with various case laws cited by the learned first appellate authority in the impugned order. As per record, the assessee has filed his return of income on October ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, which has shown better gross profit than that shown by the assessee in the present assessment year. As stated above, the assessee has filed statement of trading account, profit and loss account, balance-sheet and audit report in Form 3CD duly signed by the authorised person. As regards the cash credits which the assessee has shown in his return, one can establish its genuineness by furnishing necessary documentary evidence but due to lack of communication by his chartered accountant the assessee could not furnish the same. As regards the foreign gift in dispute which the assessee has received from his real brother who is residing in the USA and made the gift to the assessee out of love and affection through banking channel, for that the assessee has produced all necessary evidence in the assessment proceedings. As regards to the agricultural income declared by the assessee on estimation basis, which has been converted into the income of the assessee from other sources without appreciating the Revenue's record furnished before the Assessing Officer being ancestral land as per Jamabandi available with the assessment record. No doubt, the Assessing Officer completed the assessm....