TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 701
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or modify any of the grounds stated hereinabove either before or at the time of hearing." 2. The assessee is a civil contractor declared total income of Rs. 7,17,790/- by filing return on 21.09.2010. The assessment was finalized u/s 143(3) of the Act with an addition of Rs. 1,15,500/- on account of unsecured loan and Rs. 1,50,360/- being disallowance of bogus creditors namely Ms. Gayatri Trading Co. In fact, unsecured loans to the tune of Rs. 7,96,300/- were obtained by the assessee, details whereof was called for by the Learned AO upon which following were submitted: 1. Bhanumatiben J Patel Rs.19,500/- 2. Bhavik Patel Rs.19,500/- 3. Dilipbhai J. Patel Rs.19,500/- 4. Hetal Patel Rs.19,500/- 5. Dalpat Mama Rs.19,500/- 6. Mohanlal Patel Rs.18,500/- Total Rs.1,15,500/- Therefore, show-cause was issued as to why such unsecured loans should not be treated as sham. Such addition was claimed to have been agreed upon by the assessee in terms of the order sheet entry dated 25.02.2013. Penalty proceeding was initiated on the alleged ground of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in the return of income of the assessee. It is the case of the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urchase because payment of purchase was fulfilled next year. During the course of the assessment proceedings the document submitted was fully accepted by the income tax officer and no aby defects found in those documents. It is decided in the following cases that assessee offered an income to be tax in this circumstances no penalty is leviable. 1) CIT V/s. Vinaychand Harilal 120 ITR 752(Guj HC) 2) CIT V/s. Navneetlal Pchalal 213 ITR 69(Guj HC) 3) CIT V/s. Millax Cable Industries 261 ITR 675(Guj HC) 4) CIT V/s. Sureshchandra Mital 251 ITR (SC) In view of the above facts and submission we request you to drop the penalty proceedings." It is the finding of Learned Assessing Officer while imposing penalty that the assessee has failed to discharge its onus of proving his bonafide regarding identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. No prima facie evidence and/or details as to the identity and/or the creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transaction were furnished by the assessee. Neither any cogent document and/or evidence has been submitted by the assessee in support of his statement that details regarding of the transaction during the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g to the Learned AR even if the details of the parties were not provided by the assessee to the Learned AO during assessment proceeding, the Learned AO could have direct the assessee to provide the same during penalty proceeding which is the duty incumbent upon the authorities below for making enquiry before coming to the conclusion of imposition of punishment. In support of his argument he relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of National Textile-vs.-CIT. On the contrary, the Learned DR relied upon the order passed by the authorities below. 4. We have heard the respective parties, perused the relevant materials available on record, we find that the penalty proceeding was issued on the premise that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income in the return of income relating to unsecured loans and proceeded particularly on the finding that the assessee has failed to satisfactorily discharge its onus of prove his bonafide regarding identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. In the assessment proceeding, even assuming, that the assessee failed to submit such details of the parties as asked for by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ide note sheet entry dated 12/12/2012 was asked the assessee to provide address of Gayatri Trading Co to make enquiry. Again vide note sheet entry dated 20/12/2012 assessee was again requested to file address of the party. The assessee did not file the address of Gayatri Trading Co. Vide order sheet entry dated 11/02/2013 the assessee was asked to show caused as to why addition should not made as the details called for was not provided inspite of repeated reminders. Finally vide note sheet entry dated 25/02/2013, the assessee expressed its inability to furnish details and offered the amount for taxation." The judgment cited by the Learned Counsel on this aspect clearly deals with the proposition as argued by him, the operative Para whereof is as follows: 51. The order imposing penalty is quasi-criminal in nature and, thus, burden lies on the department to establish that the assessee had concealed his income. Since burden of proof in penalty proceedings varies from that in the assessment proceeding, as finding in an assessment proceeding that a particular receipt is income cannot automatically be adopted, though a finding in the assessment proceeding constitute good evidence in....