TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 563
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....account of addition on share application money received from five companies aggregating to Rs. 38,75,000/-. 3. Brief facts are that, the assessee had received share application money from various companies. The total share application money received from various companies aggregated to Rs. 2,37,24,900/-. From the stage of the CIT(A), relief of Rs. 1,98,49,900/- was given on account of share application received from Smt Nirmala Barmecha, however, in respect of following five companies share application money received was confirmed by the CIT(A) under section 68, as unexplained credit:- 1. Coromandal Merchants P. Ltd. 2. Maple Mercantile P. Ltd. 3. Certicare Marketing P. Ltd. 4. Ziwani Barter P. Ltd. 5. Devraaj Mercantile P. L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and explanation. During the course of penalty proceedings, the assessee had submitted the entire documents and evidences including bank account of the parties; Balance sheet; copy of return of income filed; confirmation letter; Form No. 2 filed with the Registrar of Companies; 'PAN card', etc. Thus, the onus of the assessee stood fully discharged and accordingly, no penalty can be levied under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or for concealment of income. 5. On the other hand, Ld. DR strongly relied upon the order of the AO and submitted that, once the addition has been confirmed the penalty has rightly been levied. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty after considering the entire documents and analyzing of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of specific documents which point towards the genuineness of the transactions as also the existence and creditworthiness of the companies. 5.1 I have also gone through the bank accounts of all the five companies for the month of July, 2005 in which all these transactions of investment are stated to have taken place. It is clear that all the five companies have had substantial transactions and they had substantial inflow and outflow of monies in all these accounts. Be that as it may, this by itself cannot lead to a situation where levying of is the natural consequence. The AO appears to have erred in presuming that the arguments which apply to the quantum additions are identical to the arguments which apply to the levy of penalty. It is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat it had indeed sought to introduce unexplained cash credits. As the AR has been at pains to point out the decision not to further agitate the matter cannot in any way be taken as proof of acceptance of the penal consequences as well. 5.3 The upholding of the quantum addition by the CIT(A) is seen to hinge on factors such as commonality of addresses of all the investors and debits from the bank accounts of the investors following on the heels of the credits made. The AO has chosen to reiterate these issues, rather than make out a case for imposition of penalty. It is seen that the AO has simply not found acceptable the explanation and the documentation furnished by the appellant. Nowhere has he been able to make out a case that the appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch, 2007 reflecting the share application money applied; Copies of income-tax return filed for the same assessment year along with PAN; return of allotment filed with the ROC; allotment of shares to the respective allottees. All these evidences filed by the assessee has not been rebutted or disputed by the AO. It is a trite law that penalty proceedings are separate and distinct from the assessment proceedings and even if in the quantum proceedings, the matter has attained finality, however in the penalty proceedings, assessee may chose to rely upon the same material to prove that he has not guilty of furnishing of concealment of income. The Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) raises rebuttable presumption and once the assessee has furnished ....