Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2022 (4) TMI 164

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal : "1. That on the facts and circumstancdes of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was highly unjustified erred by confirming the imposition of the alleged peanlty, imposed mechanicalluy without exercising the discretion vested by the statue judiciously is unsustainable on facts in law, submissions made, hence, the same be cancelled and justice rendered. 2. That the penalty order is bad in law deserves to be cancelled. 3. That the appellant humbly craves leave to add, urge, after modify the grounds before or at the time of hearing." 2. Succinctly stated, survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 06.03.2006. During the course of survey proceedings ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. As the assessee/appellant despite having been intimated about the hearing of appeal had failed to put up an appearance before us, therefore, we are constrained to proceed with and dispose off the appeal as per Rule 24 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, i.e, after hearing the respondent revenue and perusing the orders of the lower authorities. 6. As is discernible from the assessment order, the Assessing Officer had dubbed the loans of Rs. 1,17,000/- (supra) that was claimed by the assessee to have been raised from six persons as unexplained cash credits u/s.68 of the Act, for the reason that the authenticity of the same could not be substantiated to his satisfaction by the assesse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o the hilt the authenticity of the loan transactions in question, therefore, the same were justifiably to be held as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act, but at the same time, we cannot also remain oblivious of the fact that the assessee in order to support the veracity of the aforesaid loan transactions had placed on record the copies of the returns of income of the said respective lenders. Admittedly, it was for the assessee to produce the aforementioned parties, or, place on record their respective confirmations, specifically when he was directed to do so by the Assessing Officer. However, a mere lapse on the part of the assessee to substantiate to the hilt the genuineness of the loan transaction under consideration, or, in other ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the aforementioned lenders he could have carried out the necessary verifications on his own, which we find had not been done by him. Be that as it may, we are of the considered view, that though the failure of the assessee to substantiate the authenticity of the loan transactions justified the dubbing of the same as unexplained cash credits u/s.68 of the Act, but the same on such standalone basis and nothing else would not suffice for saddling the assessee with penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. Also, we may herein observe, that the Assessing Officer had neither in the course of assessment proceedings specified the default for which the impugned penalty proceedings had been initiated in the hands of the assessee nor had clearly pointe....