TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 381
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-served with the endorsement of postal authorities that assessee has 'left' the address. In spite of issue of several notices as none appeared nor any adjournment was sought by the assessee, this appeal is disposed off and hearing the Ld. DR. The Ld. DR submits that while completing the assessment the Assessing Officer made addition u/s 68 of the Act in respect of sundry creditors as the assessee could not prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors. Penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 23.12.2017 by the Assessing Officer calling for explanation on 27.01.2018 and 12.06.2018. 3. Considering the reply filed by the assessee on 12.06.2018 as the assessee could not prove the identity, gen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as no longer in touch with the same and could not provide relevant addresses. 4. In view of above discussion and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that assessee is liable to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." In view of above, the AO levied a penalty of Rs.1,29,39,641/-. 5.1 I have considered the facts of the ground, contention of the AR of the appellant and impugned order. During the course of assessment proceedings, an addition of Rs.3,80,91,495/- was made by the AO on account of non confirmation from several parties. The main contention of the appellant is that it had submitted copies of accounts of all the said parties to subs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sting the quantum addition, cannot be a basis of penalty and that assessment proceedings is different from penalty proceedings, the onus was on the appellant to furnish explanation supported with cogent evidence so as to prove the bona fide of the claim. However, there is no such explanation much less a bona fide explanation has been adduced by the appellant. 5.4 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and other Vs Dharmendra Textiles Processors and others 306 ITR 217 has held that the 'mens rea' need not be established before imposition of penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. "The explanation appended to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, indicate the element of strict liabil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5.6 Reference can be made to the case of CIT vs. Escorts Finance Ltd. 226 CTR 105 (Del), Where the jurisdictional High Court held that "Even if there is no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particular s, but on basis thereof the claim which is made is ex facie bogus, it may still attract penalty provisions. Cases of bogus hundi loans or bogus sales or purchases have been treated as that of concealment or inaccuracy in particulars of income for the judicial pronouncements (See Krishna vs. CIT 217 ITR 645, Rajram vs. CIT 193 ITR 614 and Beena Metals 240 ITR 222)." 5.7 The Hon"ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman SEBI Vs. Shri Ram Mutual Fund reported in (2006) 68 SCL 216 (SC), in para 35 have held as ....