AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (4) TMI 1233
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eedings, the Assessing Officer[AO in short] noticed that the assessee received following amounts towards share capital and unsecured loans from various persons detailed as under:- Sr. No. Particulars Share capital Unsecured loan Total 1 NRIs. 45,50,000 9,80,000 55,30,000 2 Assessees 20,84,500 17,36,700 38,21,200 3 Agriculturists 1,00,000 6,17,000 7,17,000 4 Non-assessees 17,17,500 24,97,100 42,14,600 ------------- ------------- ------------ 84,52,000 58,30,800 1,42,82,800 ------------- ------------- ------------ To a query by the AO, seeking list of share-holders and share- application forms, the assessee submitted vide letter dated 11-1- 1996 as under:- "Ours is a private limited company and most of our shareholders are relatives and friends of the promoters. They have accordingly not made any applications for shares and therefore the company does not possess any applications on record." 2.1 The AO further pointed out that the details of loans given by the persons, who are assessees, revealed that the fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....00 = 717000 though the assessee submitted confirmatory letters of the aforesaid persons, no evidence was furnished regarding the sources of these investments or even of any agricultural income. Even when the assessee was asked to produce Mr. Yasin Hussain Saiyed and Shri Yunus Sharif for cross verification, they were not produced nor any supporting evidence was filed to establish the genuineness of the credits or the creditworthiness of these persons. Accordingly, the investment in share capital and loans from these persons were not accepted as genuine and added u/s 68 of the Act. 2.3 Regarding investment by non-assessees, the AO asked the assessee to produce the following persons for cross verification:- 1) Shri Amin Yasin Saiyed 2) Shri Khalik A Saiyed 3) Shri Ayub A Saiyed 4) Shri Salim Yasin Saiyed 5) Shri Yasin H Saiyed 6) Shri Hanif Saiyed 7) Shri V Prabhakaran 8) P A holder of Shri Abdul Tanver 9) Shri Mohmed Safi Belhasa 10) Shri Solanki Ishaque Yasin 11) Shri Jahid Salim Saiyed 12) Smt. Rukaiya Ayub Saiyed 13) Shri Yunus Sarif 14)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tive. 3. In view of above submission of the learned departmental representative and concession by learned authorized representative, in the interest of justice, we restore this issue to the file of AO with the direction to decide the whole appeal afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee." 5 In pursuance to the aforesaid directions of the ITAT, the AO In the revised assessment reduced the addition of Rs.7,17,000/-by Rs. 44,000,since one of the depositor Shri Thakorbhai N Patel in his statement accepted that he had invested Rs.44,000/- in the assessee-company for purchase of shares. Accordingly,addition was reduced to Rs. 6,73,000, the assessee having failed to establish the genuineness of the transactions and the creditworthiness of the remaining creditors. 5.1 As regards addition of Rs.42,14,600/-, as mentioned in para V of the assessment order, the assessee produced the following persons out of 57 for examination u/s 131 of the Act:- 01. Liyakat Ali Amin Saiyed 225000 10. Khalil Rafiq Saiyed 300000 16. Ahid Hanif Saiyed 115000 17. Jahid Hanif Saiyed 115000 27. Saif Ali Khan 19000 34. Vinod K....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tries (P) Ltd.,131 ITR 688(Cal.), C Kant & Co. vs. CIT,126 ITR 63(Cal.),Prakash Textile Agency Vs. CIT,121 ITR 890(Cal.) , Shankar industries vs. CIT,114 ITR 689(Cal.) and MA Uneeri Kutty vs. CIT,198 ITR 147(Ker),affirmed by Supreme Court in 201 ITR 23(st.) apart from decision in Veltra Deoraj & Co. vs. CIT,68 ITR 708(Bom.) and CIT Vs. Kundan Investment Ltd.,25 SITC 266.In nutshell , original amount added u/s 68 of the Act was reduced to Rs. 6,73,000/- and Rs. 33,78,138/- ,totalling to 40,51,138/-. Here it may be pointed that nowhere the AO pointed out the component of share capital or unsecured loans while making the addition of 33,78,138/-. 6 On appeal, the assessee surrendered an amount of Rs.7,95,000/- attributed to the minors as mentioned in para 4.1 of the appellate order dated 8.12.2004. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the findings of the AO in the following terms:- "3 The appellant company was set up to manufacture craft paper. Sources of investment include cash credits and share deposits from persons of insubstantial means. The assessing officer made an addition of Rs.55,83,868/- in respect of unproved cash credits and s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e me. 05 They have not earned any income in the past. 06 No creditworthiness has been proved. 07 The above said deposits is nothing but unaccounted money of the assessee company introduced in the books of accounts by way of share application money through family members to have been received by them as loan. 08 No proof of returning loan to have been established nor proof of share allotted have been produced. Considering the above facts the assessee has not proved genuineness of the share application money credited in the books of account and no creditworthiness of the lenders and transaction have been found genuine. 6 The genuineness of the cash credits / share deposits has not been established in course of the appellate proceedings too. I am therefore satisfied that the additions have bee made for sufficient cause. The additions are upheld." 7 On further appeal by the assessee, the ITAT Ahmedabad Bench-C vide their order dated 03-03-2006 in ITA No.3933/Ahd/2004, restored the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with the following observations:- "6. The ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has not considered all fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... After considering the finding which weighed with the Tribunal in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals), it appears that the Tribunal proceeded on the footing that since the assessee did not offer any explanation for the cash credit entries, the amounts in question had to be treated as income under section 68 of the Act. Since that approach is not in consonance with the law laid down by the apex court in Smt.P.K.Noorjahan's case [1999J 237 ITR 570, we are of the view that the matter is required to be remanded, to the Tribunal for taking a fresh decision in the matter in accordance with law after applying the test laid down by the apex court in CIT Vs. Smt.P.K.Noorjahan [1999] 237ITR 570; Roshan Di Hatti V. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 939 (SC) and CIT Vs. Bharat Engineering and Construction Co. [1972] 83 ITR 187 (SC)." 10 In the light of above discussion and keeping in view the above finding of jurisdictional High Court, we find it appropriate to send back this matter to the file of CIT(A) to decide the matter a fresh in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to both sides." 8 In pursuance to the aforesaid directions o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... record of the depositors. 3. Copy of bank account of depositors could not be obtained as they say that it is their private matter and they cannot disclose to us. However, we have produced our copy of bank a/c. All the deposits are a/c. pay order or draft or by a/c payee cheques only. All these details are place at the time of original assessment also" 6. It is obvious that even when the opportunity given at the remand report stage the appellant has nothing new to offer by way of evidence except what has already been filed during the original assessment proceedings which were rejected after detailed examination by the then assessing officer. The AO has rightly pointed out that the appellant's plea that it is a matter that is 13 years old and therefore, he does not have the relevant information is an insupportable argument as the onus to prove the genuineness of the unexplained loans/share deposits is upon the appellant. It is quite clear that the onus to prove its case is upon the appellant as the appellant is in appeal and not the department. Therefore, in the instant case the appellant has failed to discharge his onus. In that case it would not be unfair to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g us through pages 1 to 6, 23, 49 , 66 & 114 of the paper book submitted that the dispute relates to the addition of Rs.32,56,138/- u/s 68 of the Act. The said addition comprises three amounts; Rs.6,73,000/- of which Rs.1,00,000/- is on account of share capital and Rs.5,73,000/- on account of unsecured loans; Rs.8,55,550/- was on account of share capital and Rs.17,27,500/- on account of unsecured deposits. It was pleaded that though the ld. CIT(A) referred to the observations of the ITAT in the impugned order, he did not consider the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mitesh Rolling Mills P. Ltd. vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 278 (Guj). As regards share capital, the learned AR contended that in view of the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Lovely Exports Ltd.,216 CTR(SC) 195, Uma Polymers (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2006) 100 ITD 1 (Jodhpur) (TM), CIT vs. Pragati Co-operative Bank Ltd. (2005) (2005), 278 ITR 170 (Guj), and Murlidhar Lahorimal Vs. CIT,280 ITR 512 (Guj), the addition u/s 68 of the Act was not justified. On the other hand, the learned DR while referring to page 2 of the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) contended that the ITAT had restored the issue to the file of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....96 as to whether amounts of Rs.8,55,550/- & Rs.17,27,500/- were towards unsecured loans or share capital, in the subsequent assessment order in pursuance to directions of the ITAT, these two have been attributed to share capital by the AO and consequently, the ld. CIT(A) also upheld the additions ,treating the amount towards share capital. Even in the impugned order , the ld. CIT(A) have not recorded his findings as to whether or not the amount Rs. 33,78,138/- was towards share capital. However, before us, the ld. AR on behalf of the assessee while inviting our attention to the relevant page 66 & 113 of the paper book submitted that the amount of Rs.8,55,550/- was on account of share capital and Rs.17,27,500/- on account of unsecured deposits. 10.1 As regards share capital, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Sophia Finance Ltd.,205 ITR 98(Del)(FB),enunciated that s. 68 reposes in the AO, the jurisdiction to inquire from the assessee, the nature and source of the sum found credited in its books of account. If the explanation offered by the assessee is found not to be satisfactory, further enquiries can be made by the AO himself, both in regard to the nature and the source of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....[page 49 of the PB] and there is no dispute that the shareholder is not identifiable. As regards the addition of 8,55,550/-, though the ld. AR contended before us that the amount is towards share capital, a bare perusal of confirmations placed at pages 66 to 112 of the PB reveal that only an amount of Rs. 3 lacs attributed to persons at sl. no. 1 to 6 appears to be towards share capital while remaining amount is towards unsecured loans. Like wise, only an amount of Rs. 7.12 lacs embedded in the addition of Rs. 17,27,500/- appears to be towards share capital and the remaining towards unsecured loans as appearing from confirmations placed at page 114 to 217 of the PB. Since the appeal pertains to the AY 1993-94 and twice the ITAT have remanded the matter on earlier occasions, we do not think it proper to restore the matter again to the file of the AO or the ld. CIT(A) in order to identify share capital and unsecured loans embedded in the additions of Rs. 8,55,500/- and Rs. 17,27,500/- and record their findings, accordingly. In these circumstances, the matter is being decided in accordance with facts brought to our notice by the respective parties and as we understood on perusal of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 114 to 123 2 Smt. Kulsum Mohemadali Saiyed 225000 " 124 to 133 3 Smt. Norrbanu Amin Saiyed 200000 " 134 to 146 4 Smt. Hajra Rafiq Saiyed 170000 " 147 to 159 5 Smt. Noorjahan Ayub Saiyed 210000 " 160 to 172 6 Smt. Safiya Yasin Saiyed 225000 " 173 to 186 7 Smt. Hamida Salim Saiyed 200000 " 187 to 199 8 Miss. Firdos Ayub Saiyed 140000 " 200 to 205 9 Smt. Aklima Hanif Saiyed 140000 " 206 to 217 1727500 Even though the ld. AR stated that the said amount is on account of unsecured loans, we find from their confirmations placed in the paper book that an amount of Rs. 7.12 lacs has been attributed to share capital while remaining amount of Rs.10,15,500/- is on account of unsecured loans. 10.5 The ld. AR argued that this being the first year of operations of the company and turnover being only Rs. 88,000/-, addition on account of share capital or unsecured loans,having recourse to provisions of sec. 68 was not justified, inter alia, in the light of view taken by the Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in Mitesh Rolling Mills P. L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g to be in the name of third party, still represented the income of the assessee from suppressed sources. However, in the instant case there is no material to show that share application money or for that matter unsecured loans in the name of persons whose confirmations were submitted before the AO were of the assessee-company. The fact that some of the investors got the pay orders and loans from different persons, is a matter for enquiry in the hands of the said investors and not in the case of the assesseecompany. Similarly, the discrepancies found in the account of some of investors is a cause to make enquiry in their cases. Further, the fact that all the unsecured loans from the creditors, whose confirmations were filed before the AO were received by the assessee before the commencement of the business or immediately thereafter, has not been disputed by the Revenue. In CIT v. Bharat Engineering and Construction Co. [1972] 83 ITR 187 , the assessee was an engineering construction company, which commenced its business in May, 1943 but there were several cash credit entries in the first year of its business amounting to Rs. 2.5 lakhs The assessee was called upon to explain such cr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r not satisfactory. Such opinion formed itself constitutes a prima facie evidence against the assessee, viz., the receipt of money, and if the assessee fail to rebut the said evidence, the same can be used against the assessee by holding that it was a receipt of an income nature. In the case in hand, the authorities concurrently found the explanation offered by the assessee unacceptable. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the opinion formed by the Assessing Officer that the explanation offered was not satisfactory. 10.53 In the light of observations of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Mitesh Rolling Mills P Ltd. vs. CIT,258 ITR 278(Guj), as extracted in the order dated 3.3.2006, which the ld. CIT(A) did not even consider in the impugned order despite specific directions, as also in the light of observations of the Apex Court in Smt. P. K. Noorjahan's case [1999] 237 ITR 570 (SC) and CIT v. Bharat Engineering and Construction Co. [1972] 83 ITR 187 (SC), we are of the opinion that although as a legal proposition, the provisions of the s. 68 do apply to each and every credit entry in the books of account to be maintained but the explanation of the assessee has to be considered depen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5. In this appeal filed by the assessee against an order dated 30-11-2006 of the ld. CIT(A), following ground has been raised: "The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) by AO of Rs.23,29,404/- on the addition of cash credit u/s 68 of the Act that is wholly unsustainable in law and on facts and as such when the Appellant has discharged the onus of having established the genuineness of the transaction by submitting the identity and confirmation of the depositors. Both the lower authorities have failed to appreciate the fact that the Appellant has neither furnished inaccurate particulars nor concealed any income and held that simply because addition is sustained, penalty is leviable. The penalty levied being without any merits and justification requires to be quashed." 16. Facts, in brief, have already been narrated in the quantum appeal as aforesaid. While completing the assessment vide order dated 29.1.2004 , the AO added the following two amounts u/s 68 of the Act:- 1. Investment in Share Capital by the Agriculturists not treated as genuine Rs.673000/- 2. Investment in Share Capital by others treated as cash credit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re confirmed by the shareholders.The share holders for an amount of Rs.8,55,550/- could not be produced in person as 13 years had elapsed. Since the deposits were confirmed, there was no room for penalty of Rs.23,29,404/- and the same may be deleted, the assessee pleaded.However, the ld. CIT(A) rejected the contentions of the assessee, in the following terms: "5.3 It is obvious from the above that even when the opportunity given at the remand report stage, the appellant has nothing new to offer by way of evidence except what has already been filed during the original assessment proceedings which were rejected after detailed examination by the then assessing officer. The AO has rightly pointed out that the appellant's plea that it is a matter that is 13 years old and therefore, he does not have the relevant information is an insupportable argument as the onus to prove the genuineness of the unexplained loans/share deposits is upon the appellant. It is quite clear that the onus to prove its case is upon the appellant as the appellant is in appeal and not the department. Therefore, in the instant case the appellant had failed to discharge his onus. In that case it would n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... had filed proofs for identity of these depositors and Share depositors. The AR further argued that it is not open to the AO to levy penalty only because addition is sustained. The AR also argued that the AO should have proved positive act or deliberate act of biding or holding something back. Merely because the cash credits are disbelieved, no penalty can be imposed. The AO should have brought out on record that the appellant's own unaccounted monies were introduced in the guise of Cash credits and Share deposits. The AR argued that the AO has not appreciated these facts and imposed penalty. Penalty can not be imposed only because it is lawful to do so. According to the AR it is a matter of believing or not believing the explanation offered by the appellant and not adducing any evidences against the appellant. The AR contended that the appellant's case is not a fit case for levying the concealment penalty as the matter involves appreciation or otherwise of the evidences filed and placed on record. 5.7 I have considered the arguments of the appellant as well as the observation of the AO in the penalty order. On the basis of the above factual matrix of the case, I a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 20. We have heard both the parties and gone through the facts of the case as also the decisions relied upon. At the outset, we may point out that in an appeal against quantum addition in ITA no 1544/Ahd./2007, we have reduced the addition of Rs. 32,56,138 /- to Rs.2,08,000/- ,since in respect of the amount of Rs. 1,39,000/- in the name of Yunus Sharif & Rs. 69,000/- in the name of Ayub Mohid Husain, their confirmations or even date when amount was brought in or nature of receipt and any material/evidence in respect of sources of the amount have not been placed before us. In these circumstances, since the addition to the extent of Rs.30,48,138, forming the basis for levy of penalty, has been deleted by us vide our aforesaid order, penalty levied by the AO does not survive in relation to the said amount. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. R.Dalmia,(1992)107 Taxation 107, held that no penalty survives after deletion of additions, forming the basis for the levy of penalty. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.C.Builders Vs. ACIT,265 ITR 562(SC) held that ordinarily, penalty cannot stand if the assessment itself is set aside. Where an order of assessment or reassessmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ah [1994] 117 CTR (SC) 130; [1994] 205 ITR 244 (SC); TC 50 R. 973 and K.P.Madhusudanan vs. CIT,251 ITR 99(SC), it is well established that whenever there is difference between the returned and assessed income, there is inference of concealment. The explanation 1 to sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act raises a presumption that can be rebutted by the assessee with reference to facts of the case. Thus, the onus is on the assessee to rebut the inference of concealment. The absence of explanation itself would attract penalty. The explanation offered by the assessee should not be false. The onus laid down upon the assessee to rebut the presumption raised under explanation 1 would not be discharged by any fantastic or fanciful explanation. It is not the law that any and every explanation has to be accepted while mere offer of income by the assessee can not justify cancellation of penalty. Undisputedly, no cogent explanation has been given on account of difference of Rs. 7,95,000+ 2,08,000=10,03,000/- between the returned and assessed income and thus, onus laid down upon the assessee in terms of explanation 1 to sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act remains undischarged. Even other wise explanation of the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt Commissioner issues to an assessee a notice under section 271, he makes the assessee aware that the provisions thereof are to be used against him. These provisions include the Explanation. By reason of the Explanation, where the total income returned by the assessee is less than 80 per cent. of the total income assessed under section 143 or 144 or 147, reduced to the extent therein provided, the assessee is deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof, unless he proves that the failure to return the correct income did not arise from any fraud or neglect on his part. The assessee is, therefore, by virtue of the notice under section 271 put to notice that if he does not prove, in the circumstances stated in the Explanation,, that his failure to return his correct income was not due to fraud or neglect, he shall be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof and, consequently, be liable to the penalty provided by that section. No express invocation of the Explanation to section 271 in the notice under section 271 is, in our view, necessary before the provisions of the Explan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rned, we have already pointed out that under Explanation 1, additions/disallowances made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the appellate authorities, will represent the concealed income of the assessee, provided no explanation is furnished or the explanation furnished is found to be false or the assessee is not able to substantiate the explanation or the explanation is not bona fide." 21.5 In the instant case ,since the assessee failed to establish the source of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 7,95,000/- and accordingly surrendered the amount after more than 10 years of filing of the return while in respect of amount of Rs. 2,08,000/,the assessee failed to substantiate their explanation during the assessment proceedings and even during penalty proceedings and the addition having been sustained by us,apparently, explanation 1 to sec. 271(1)(c) is attracted and the assessee has failed to discharge the onus laid down under this explanation. 21.6 In the case of CIT v. Ganpatrai Gajanand [1977] 108 ITR 403 (Ori.), the Assessing Officer added a sum found credited in the books of the assessee to this income by rejecting the explanation of the assessee unsatisfactory. The Assessi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....here, in respect of any item of credit, (a) the assessee fails to offer an explanation, or (b) the assessee offers an explanation which the taxing officer considers to be false, or (c) the assessee offers an explanation but no material or evidence to substantiate it, he shall be deemed to have concealed such income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c). What sections 68, 69, 69A and 69C deem for the purpose of assessment was injected for the purpose of the penalty by operation of a deemed provision. A proviso was added to the new Explanation. It concerns cases where the assessee offers an explanation which he is not able to substantiate. Consequently, the provision intended to save such amount from imposition of penalty, although the same had been added to the assessee's explanation is found to be bona fide and all facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his total income have been disclosed by him." Their Lordships further held at pages 648 to 650 as under: "A conspectus of the Explanation added by the Finance Act, 1964, and the subsequent substituted Explanation makes it clear that the statute visualised the assessment proceedings and penalt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g body to judge the relevancy and sufficiency of the materials. If such a fact-finding body, bearing the aforesaid principles in mind, comes to the conclusion that the assessee has discharged the onus, it becomes a conclusion of fact, and no question of law arises. As observed earlier, the initial burden is on the assessee. Once the initial burden is discharged, the assessee would be out of the mischief unless further evidence is adduced. It is plain on principle that it is not the law that the moment any fantastic or unacceptable explanation is offered, the burden placed would be discharged and the presumption rebutted. As pointed out by the Apex Court in Mussadilal Ram Bharose (165 ITR 14) the burden placed upon the assessee is not discharged by any fantastic explanation. It must be an explanation acceptable to the fact-finding body. The position on and after April 1, 1976 is clear that where, in respect of any item of credit, the assessee had offered an explanation which the taxing officer has considered to be false or the assessee has offered an explanation but not material or evidence to substantiate it, he shall be deemed to have concealed such income within the mean....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....High Court relates to the assessment year 1964-65, the proposition of law and the ratio laid down in that case is equally applicable to Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) inserted by Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, w.e.f. 1-4-1976. 21.10 Hon'ble Allahabad High court held in the case of Sangam Enterprises Vs. CIT,288 ITR 396(All) that "Having given our anxious consideration to the contention raised by Shri Mahajan, we find that after the insertion of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, if the explanation offered by the assessee regarding the additions is either found to be false and remained unsubstantiated, the additions so made are deemed to be the concealed income, and therefore, the penalty provisions are attracted. The decision relied upon by the Tribunal relates to the assessment years prior to April 1, 1976, when the present Explanation was not in the statute book, and, therefore, they are not applicable in the present case. We are therefore, of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has completely misdirected itself in cancelling the penalty." 21.11 As regards reliance on decision in the case of Nati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e can rebut the presumption raised against it, is stated by the apex court in the same decision in the following words while confirming the view expressed by the Full Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of CIT v. Nathulal Agarwala and Sons [1985] 153 ITR 292: "The Patna High Court emphasised that as to the nature of the explanation to be rendered by the assessee, it was plain on principle that it was not the law that the moment any fantastic or unacceptable explanation was given, the burden placed upon him would be discharged and the presumption rebutted we agree. We further agree that it is not the law that any and every explanation by the assessee must be accepted. It must be an acceptable explanation, acceptable to a factfinding body. We are aware that it would not be possible for the High Court to enter into a factfinding exercise or reappreciate the evidence and we do not propose to do so. However, at the same time, it is apparent that the burden which is cast on the assessee remains undischarged when one applies the principles laid down by the apex court. As observed, the explanation has to be one which is not fantastic or unacceptable. It is not the l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a positive case of no concealment, in the second stage, it would be a positive case of concealment and in the third case, benefit of doubt will go in favour of the assessee. But in either case, inquiry must proceed from the stage the alleged disclosure has taken place and not stop at that stage and close the inquiry at the threshold on the abstract principle that mere rejection of explanation does not result into levy of penalty. The Tribunal has obviously erred in stopping at that stage and not considering the material before it on the basis of which the authority levying penalty has come to a positive finding as noticed by us. The assessee before us has not disclosed the address of the depositors during the course of assessment proceedings and during the course of penalty proceedings. In the absence of details of creditors and other facts to prove the genuineness of the deposits, the onus lies on the assessee. As per Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c), the onus is not discharged by the assessee. The burden lies on the assessee is not discharged by convincing explanation nor it is law that any explanation by the assessee must be accepted. We, therefore, confirm the order ....