TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (2) TMI 69
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ugust 31, 1987, declaring an income of Rs. 1,60,010. In the course of the assessment proceedings, counsel for the assessee made an offer to surrender a sum of Rs. 2,95,000 by stating that his client wanted to purchase peace subject to the condition that there would be no penalty and prosecution. The Assessing Officer did not accept the surrender made on behalf of the assessee and finalised the assessment vide his order dated March 31, 1989, at an income of Rs. 3,74,020 by adding Rs. 3,40,000 as income from undisclosed sources. He also initiated penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(a), 271(1)(c) and 273(1)(b) of the Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Rohtak (for short, "the CIT(A)"), vide his order dated February 3, 1992, partly accepted the appeal and directed the Assessing Officer to verify the statement of peak deposits furnished by the appellant with a further direction that if it was found in order, then he should restrict the addition to the peak amount shown by the appellant or the peak amount arrived at by him after verification. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) read as under: "5. The 13th and 14th grounds o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The appellant had given the working of the peak in his unsigned offer given on February 21, 1989. The working of the peak has also been given before me in appellate proceedings as under: Statement of peak deposits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date Particulars Cr. Dr. Balance Cr. ----------------------------------------------------------------- 25-8-1986 By Chattar Singh 45,000.00 Nil 45,000.00 14-11-1986 By Thakur Jai Singh 50,000.00 Nil 95,000.00 14-11-1986 By Ch. Nihal Singh 50,000.00 Nil 1,45,000.00 14-11-1986 By Mehar Singh 50,000.00 Nil 1,95,000.00 24-11-1986 By Ch. Jagpal Singh 50,000.00 Nil 2,45,000.00 22-12-1986 By Ch. Badlu Ram&n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filed before the Assessing Officer along with the affidavits of the concerned cash creditors. From the records placed here before us, it emerges that all the cash creditors, are duly assessed to income-tax since the assessment year 1987-88. Therefore, the genuineness of the cash creditors is proved. It is also worth mentioning here that this is not a case of capital build up as learned counsel has stated that all the loans have already been repaid to the respective cash creditors through the middleman. Therefore, in view of these facts and circumstances the matter is restored and the Assessing Officer is directed to decide the issue afresh in view of our observations made above. The Assessing Officer is also directed to allow the assessee opportunity to produce the middleman, Shri Naresh Kumar, and other evidence if he wants to file. We order accordingly." In compliance with the direction given by the Tribunal, the Assessing Officer reconsidered the matter and passed order dated May 23, 2001, whereby he again imposed penalty of Rs. 1,38,310 on the assessee. The appeal filed by the assessee against the second penalty order was allowed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tify the imposition of penalty by the Assessing Officer by arguing that the assessee had failed to discharge the burden which lay upon it to prove the creditworthiness of the persons who had given the loans, but we have not felt persuaded to agree with him. Rather, we are convinced that no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises for determination in this appeal. In CIT v. Ms. Monica Oswal [2004] 267 ITR 308 (P&H), one of us (G.S. Singhvi J.) to whom the matter was referred on account of difference of opinion amongst the members of the Division Bench interpreted section 260A of the Act and after adverting to the relevant statutory provisions and the judgments of the Supreme Court in Panchugopal Barua v. Umesh Chandra Goswami [1997] 4 SCC 713; Ram Prasad Rajak v. Nand Kumar and Bros. [1998] 6 SCC 748; Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar [1999] 3 SCC 722; Hari Singh v. Kanhaiya Lal [1999] 7 SCC 288 and Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari [2001] 251 ITR 84 (SC), laid down the following propositions: "(a) An appeal under section 260A of the Act cannot be entertained unless a substantial question of law arises for consideration by the High Court. ....