TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 508
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....only ground raised by the assessee in its appeal is that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 200,82,00,000/- made by the learned Assessing Officer as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. ITA No.373/Mds/2015:- 3. The assessee in this appeal challenges the impugned order on the ground that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the penalty of Rs. 72,93,844/- levied by the learned Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA No.372/Mds/2015:- 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed its return of income for the assessment year 2005-06 on 31.10.2005 declaring loss of Rs. 1,58,877/-. Subsequently, in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al filed. No material evidence was also filed before the undersigned to prove its claim made in the grounds of appeal. Mere claim that investments were made prior to the financial year relevant to the A.Y. under consideration without supporting evidences is not sufficient for allowing the grounds of appeal. Even during the course of the present appellate proceedings, the AR of the appellant was specifically required to furnish the material evidence to prove its claim of investments made prior to the financial year relevant to A.Y. under consideration. The AR of the appellant stated orally that he is unable to produce any evidence in support of its claim. Therefore, all the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant are rejected as they do not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as furnished before the Revenue with any cogent evidence to explain the source of investment of Rs. 200,82,00,000/- by the learned Authorized Representative. Therefore, the learned Assessing Officer levied penalty for Rs. Rs. 72,93,844/- being 100% of tax sought to be evaded. Before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also the assessee has not come out with any explanation. Therefore, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the penalty in the hands of the assessee by observing as under:- "In the course of appellate proceedings filed against order of penalty before the undersigned, numerous opportunities were given by the undersigned by issuing notices of hearing dated 09.06.2014, 09.09.2014, 28.10.2014 fixi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of investment of Rs. 200,82,00,000/- made during the financial year relevant to the A.Y. under consideration. The claims of the appellant that the investment pertains to the financial year prior to the financial year relevant to the A.Y. 2005-06 was rejected by the undersigned in my appellate order dated 13.01.2015 as the appellant was unable to furnish the material evidence in support of its claims made. The stand of the AR of the appellant that the explanation made by the appellant during the course of penalty proceedings before the AO was bonafide requires to be rejected, as the explanation is devoid of merits. I find that the explanation furnished by the appellant was not substantiated. No material evidence was either furnished before t....