TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 855
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on along with affidavit wherein he stated that he was diagnosed the problem as internal derangement in the left knee. The Doctor advised him not to move and take complete rest. To that effect, he filed a medical certificate issued by the concerned Doctor. Keeping in view of the explanation given by the assessee and also certificate issued by the Doctor, I am of the view that there is a justified cause for delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, delay in filing of these appeals by 26 days is condoned and admit the appeals for hearing. ITA No.541/VIZ/2014 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income by declaring total income of Rs. 1,27,160/- besides, agricultural income of Rs. 20,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the explanation given by the assessee was not correct and observed that as the amount in the bank account relating to the assessee was in his individual status. The amount involved in the number of credits appearing in the bank account was to be treated as unexplained investment of the assessee. However, it is noticed that there were also huge withdrawals in the same bank account, which were inexplicable. Keeping in view of the huge deposits and withdrawals, the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that it would reasonable to arrive at the peak credit during the previous year and and subjected the same to tax. 4. On appeal, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has observed that the assessee having an agricultural land to the extent o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntly treated the transactions in the said SB A/C as related to assessee. There is nothing wrong in doing the transactions through the SB A/C of the assessee, further in the individual status there is no business activity except partnership in a finance company, hence the only possibility for the transactions in the SB A/C is relating to the business of the 'AOP'. This fact is identifiable by every person with common prudence, but the assessing officer deliberately rejected the plea of the assessee and completed the assessment. Mr. Srinivasa Rao is having more than 10.00Acs of agricultural lands and alongwith Nandigam Sudhakar he invested Rs. 1.50 Lakhs at the starting of the A.O.P. i.e. during the relevant previous year. Further ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s hands, does not by itself justify the department in imposing a penalty, the circumstances of the case must be such as to lead to the reasonable and positive conclusion that the amount represents the assessee's income. - Vide CIT v.Anwar AH (1970) 76 ITR 696 (SC) and Anantharam veerasingaiah & Co. v.CIT (1980) 123 ITR 457 (SC) and CIT v.Ramaswamy Naidu . v.(1994) 208 ITR 377 (MAD)." 5. The Assessing Officer has considered the explanation given by the assessee and came to the conclusion that Shri Korata Srinivasa Rao who is the partner of the assessee not admitted that he was in the business along with the assessee and, therefore, assessee concealed income of Rs. 1,83,213/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 61,071/-. 6. On appeal, Commis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. G.R. Rajendran (259 ITR 109) and submitted that the explanation offered by the assessee not properly examined by the Assessing Officer and also not found that the explanation is false, hence, no penalty can be levied. 9. On the other hand, Departmental Representative supported the orders of the authorities below. 10. I have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. 11. The assessee is an individual, filed his return of income, thereafter, re-assessment was completed after following due process. The Assessing Officer found huge deposits and withdrawal in the bank account of the assessee and called explanation. The as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the deposits found in the account were not in his individual capacity, it is in the capacity of associated persons. When the Assessing Officer asked the partner - Shri Korata Srinivasa Rao, he submitted that he was with the assessee in the finance business and also invested Rs. 10 lac. Still, Rs. 7 lac with the assessee, however, he submitted that he has been withdrawn from the business of the assessee. Keeping in view of the statement given by the assessee's partner, the Assessing Officer made a peak credit and also penalty under section 271(1)(c) was levied. The fact remains is that the Assessing Officer has not given opportunity of cross-examining the partner Shri Korata Srinivasa Rao, however, by relying on the statement, addition....