TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 1831
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the present case was made u/s 143(3) making addition on account of cash deposits of Rs. 70,41,000/-, treating the same as unexplained. The said addition was confirmed by the Ld.CIT(Appeals) and also by the Tribunal. Thereafter the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, on the addition so made. The assessee requested the Assessing Officer to keep the penalty proceedings in abeyance pleading that he was going to file an appeal in the High Court against the order passed by the I.T.A.T. The Assessing Officer did not accepted the plea and levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) @ 300% of the tax sought to be evaded amounting to Rs. 69,72,671/-. The matter was carried in appeal before the Ld.CIT(Appeals) who confirmed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....08 while the date of registration was fixed for 27.6.2008. An advance of Rs. 35 lacs was stated to have been received from the said Shri Mandeep Singh which was forfeited/confiscated when he did not appear on the date of registration of the sale deed. Thereafter the assessee contended, that another agreement to sell was entered into with one Shri Dhanna Singh S/o Shri Dalip Singh S/o Sarain Singh R/o Kabulpur, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala on 24.6.2008 for a consideration of Rs. 60 lacs against which advance of Rs. 30 lacs was received on the same day and the date of registration fixed was 27.6.2008, which again was forfeited/confiscated on account of non appearance of the party on the date of registration of the sale deed. Photocopies o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been able to categorically prove the source of these deposits by way of advance received as explained by him to the lower authorities but the said deposits were otherwise explainable with the books of account maintained in the regular course of business. The Ld. counsel for assessee submitted that the entire deposits were attributable to the cash withdrawn from his bank accounts. The Ld. counsel for assessee stated that an explanation to this effect was filed before the Ld.CIT(Appeals) also by way of written submissions reproduced at pages 19 to 20 of the Paper Book alongwith a chart showing movement of deposits and withdrawals in various bank account maintained by the assessee for explaining the source of the deposit in the Oriental Bank o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rotation of cash in the various bank accounts maintained by him. Copies of the Bank accounts and a cash flow statement was also filed to substantiate the explanation. But surprisingly ,we find ,that the CIT(A) did not even consider the same at all and for no apparent reason . 9. It is trite law that penalty proceedings are distinct and separate from quantum proceedings. The standard of proof for imposition of penalty is different from that on which quantum of an addition of income can be sustained. The findings given in assessment order are relevant and admissible material in penalty proceedings but these findings cannot operate as res judicata since consideration that arises in penalty proceedings are different from those in assessment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he burden of proving that the accused is guilty is always upon the prosecution..." Assessment proceedings are taxing proceedings and penalty proceedings are criminal proceedings in their very nature. A decision given in an assessment proceeding cannot possibly be binding upon the authority who tries the assessee for an offence. Therefore, it was open to the ITO in the penalty proceedings to consider his earlier finding that a particular receipt constituted income for a particular assessment year, but he was not bound by that finding. If any other evidence was produced in penalty proceedings, it was open to the ITO to come to a different conclusion." 10. Undoubtedly, in the present case the explanation offered by the assessee in quantum pr....