2014 (6) TMI 394

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Mumbai ('CIT(A)' for short) dated 15.07.2012, confirming the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) in its case for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2007-08 vide order dated 14.06.2010. 2. The background facts of the case are that the assessment was completed by disallowing the expenditure on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... second appeal. 3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record, giving our careful consideration to the matter. 3.1 The expenditure stands disallowed in the absence of the assessee being able to prove the expenditure, as also of it having been incurred for the purpose of business. No doubt, the burden of proof in the penalty proceedings is lower, but the same nevertheless is on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ber of decisions by the apex court as under, i.e., a plausible explanation, the onus to furnish and substantiate it is on the assessee, saves penalty; expounded over a series of decisions, viz. CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal [2009] 317 ITR 1 (SC); Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC); Guljag Industries v. CTO [2007] 293 ITR 584 (SC); K.P. Madhusudhanan vs. CIT [2001] 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 3.3 The assessee has placed reliance on the order by the tribunal in the case of Goyal Industries Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (in ITA No. 702/Ahd(B)/2008 dated 28.05.2010). However, as a reading of the order would show (paras 9 to 11), that is precisely what the tribunal has said, explaining the scope of the Explanation 1(B), and with specific reference to the word 'substantiate' occurring therein, confirmi....