TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1469
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....143(3). In this appeal, the assessee has challenged the confirmation of addition of Rs. 15,25,000/- as income from undisclosed sources taxable u/s 68 of the Act. 3. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the assessee received huge cash amount which was subsequently deposited in its bank account. These cash receipts were mainly from two parties, namely, M/s GR Overseas P. Ltd. - Rs. 7,25,000/- and M/s GR Mechanical Works Ltd. - Rs. 8,00,000/-. The AO observed that the assessee was not having any fresh business dealings with these two parties and the payments were shown to have been received in cash against the old outstanding balances. The assessee was called upon to furnish complete address of these parties. From the details provided b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y payment to the assessee. No further evidence was filed by the assessee to controvert the contention advanced by this party. As per the AO, the assessee even declined an opportunity of cross examination given to it. These facts indicate that there is no cogent material evidencing the receipt of a sum of Rs. 15.25 lac from these two parties. It is further observed that similar position prevailed in the immediately preceding assessment year, that is, 2006-07. In such earlier year also, the assessee received cash sums in similar circumstances from three parties, one of which is, M/s G.R. Overseas Pvt. Ltd. The AO made the addition and the Tribunal has finally upheld the addition by observing that the denial by GR Overseas P. Ltd. of making an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oceedings does not ipso facto lead to the confirmation of penalty. If this had been position, then there was no need to have separate penalty proceedings. A penalty can be imposed if the AO makes out a case of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee. Where an assessee tenders an explanation which remains unproved, it cannot be considered as a case of concealment. If, however, the explanation given by the assessee is specifically disproved by the AO, then, it leads to the imposition of penalty. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in National Textiles vs. CIT (2001) 249 ITR 125 (Guj.), has held that in order to justify levy of penalty for addition of cash credits, the explanation tendered by the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce its books of account and the Assessing Officer did precious little to enforce the attendance of M/s G.R. Overseas. Failure of M/s G.R. Overseas to appear before the Assessing Officer after denying the payment had a most crucial angle which the Assessing Officer simplistically ignored'. The above recording amply proves that the assessee did require the cross examination of M/s G.R. Overseas, which has eventually not taken place. As regards the other two parties, the assessee contended that they were small parties, whose whereabouts were not ascertainable. This has again not been demolished by the AO. These circumstances need to be seen in the backdrop of the fact that the amounts were in fact, receivable from these trade debtors. The abov....