TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 2040
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssion dated 21.01.2011 containing pages 1 to 68 wherein the assessee has explained the so called delay in filing the appeal for the year in dispute. It is respectfully submitted that he ought to have condone the so called delay by following the rule of natural justice, and as such, it is prayed that the said delay may please be condoned and this appeal may pleased be decided on the merits of the case. 2. The Learned CIT (Appeals) has also erred in not appreciating the facts and submission as per our letter dated 21.01.2011 inter alia paper book page 1 to 68. It is respectfully submitted that the learned CIT (Appeals) ought not to have mainly relied on the finding given by him in the order passed by him against 143(3) of the Act. 3. The CIT(Appeals) has erred in not appreciating the facts and / or in law that there may be justification for making the addition and there may be some failure on part of the assessee to explain the cash credit but penalty under sec. 271(1)(c) is not automatic/consequential in nature, and as such, both the lower authorities have totally erred in levying penalty inter alia confirming the penalty by CIT (Appeals) as per his order in dispute page 43 to 4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d from page Nos. 211 to 213 of the paper-book, the contention of the assessee is that the assessee had filed all evidences in support of cash credits before the Assessing Officer. However, the authorities below have not appreciated the evidences in right perspective. The assessee was not afforded sufficient opportunity to represent his case. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that gross miscarriage of justice has been caused to the assessee; therefore, he submitted that the orders of the authorities below be set aside. 5. The ld. Sr. Departmental Representative, on the contrary, opposed the submissions of the ld. Counsel for the assessee and submitted that the assessee was not representing his case despite having been given sufficient opportunity. Even in the quantum proceedings, the Tribunal has set aside this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer and an undertaking was given by the ld. Counsel for the assessee before the Tribunal that the assessee would cooperate before the Assessing Officer. The ld. Sr. Departmental Representative submitted that the Assessing Officer has recorded a finding that the assessee had filed an affidavit executed on 08.11.2004 before the T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee has miserably failed to discharge its onus cast on it under the statute and could not establish the identity and credit worthiness of creditors and genuineness of the transaction, in spite of amble opportunity given by the AO and the CIT(A) in third round of litigation. We find that on merits of the case the CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned speaking order on the merits of the case, and the assessee could not controvert even a single line thereof. We find that from para 6.6.1 of the impugned order, the CIT(A) has considered each and every credit entry and the facts of the case for both Asstt. Years 1994-95 and 1995-1996 from page no.79 to 103 of the appellate order, and since the assessee could not controvert a single line recorded by the CIT(A) on the merits of the case, we are of the view that no interference in the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is called for, and accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) confirming the additions on its merits is confirmed for both the Asstt. Years 1994-95 and 1995-96 and all the grounds of appeal of the assessee are dismissed for the both relevant assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96." 7. The contention of the ld. Counsel for the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....143(3) & 250 of IT Act. Further the Assessing Officer recorded that the penalty notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) had come back unserved. Under these facts, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs. 4,09,342/- on the presumption that the assessee concealed the particulars of income within the meaning of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the totality of the facts. Before the Assessing Officer, no one remained present on behalf of the assessee; however, before the ld. CIT(A), Shri Ketan H. Shah, Advocate attended the proceedings. The ld. CIT(A) has decided the appeal against the assessee, both on the issue of delay and on merits. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied upon various case laws to rebut the arguments - mainly the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Private Ltd, 322 ITR 158. The judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mitsu Industries Ltd vs. DCIT, the Hon'ble High Court held that "even on the assumption that the initial onus lies on the appellant, the appellant sufficiently discharged its burden by placing explanation and evidence from time to time before the lower aut....