2006 (3) TMI 133

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... hearing of the following substantial questions of law: "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, particularly when the legality of application of section 68 for making addition in question itself was doubtful? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of Explanation to section 271(1)(c) were attracted even in absence of proper finding on the conditions of Explanation (B) to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act?" 2. Heard Shri P.M. Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri R.L. Jain,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ring in the name of kabaddies and consequently levy of penalty by virtue of Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied and upheld by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The assessing authority has rightly observed that under the present law the onus lies on the assessee and not on the Department to prove that certain amounts credited in its books were genuine and not bogus and also that the assessee was not only to give necessary explanation but to substantiate the same. The lower authorities have relied on the decisions in the cases of B-tex Corporation v. ITO [1993] 202 ITR (AT) 17 (Bom), Polycon Spun Pipes v. ACIT 53 ITD 546 (Chandigarh) and CIT v. Shama Magazine [1995] 213 ITR 64 (Delhi). We thus do not find an....