2019 (5) TMI 1497

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... "1. The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 47, Mumbai CIT (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in not adjudicating upon the following Ground No. 2 to 5 of the appeal preferred by the appellant before him: "2. Your appellant submits that the assessing officer while passing the order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act ought to have given finding as to whether appellant had concealed particulars of income or furnished in accurate particulars of income and in absence of such finding the impugned order is bad, illegal. void in law and therefore should be cancelled 3. The learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the appellant company was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause from the submission of fu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 5,69,147/-. b) Grant other relief deemed necessary." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 19.01.2011 declaring total income to the tune of Rs. Nil. Thereafter, the return was selected for scrutiny assessment. Notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee has shown the following sundry creditors in his P & L Account. The details are as under: - Sundry Creditors a) New liabilities incurred during the year Rs. 28,280 b) Kashinath Tapuriah Rs. 13,21,606 c) Raghav Corporation Rs. 2,50,000     Rs. 15,99,886 The assessee failed to prove the identity, capacity and genuineness of the lo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....which is hereby reproduced as under.: - "5. The Assessing Officer also levied penalty u/s. 271D of the Act on the ground that the assessee received loans aggregating to Rs. 1,20,000/- from Mr. Kashinath Tapuriah, which is in contravention of the provisions of section 269-SS of the Act, and sufficient explanation was not given for receiving the amount in cash. At the same time the Assessing Officer also treated cash loan as unexplained cash credit, but also levied penalty u/s. 271D of the Act, which was confirmed by learned CIT(A). 6. Further aggrieved the assessee preferred appeals before the Tribunal. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that provisions of section 68 of the Act having ....