$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 07.12.2017
+ ITA 384/2017
R.L.TRADERS ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. K.R. Manjani with
Mr. V.K. Manjani, Advs.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 47(1) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashok K. Manchanda,
Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Anand
Chaudhuri, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (ORAL)
1. The assessee's appeal under Section 260A of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as `the Act') characterizes
the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which
upheld the order of the Appellate Commissioner, as perverse.
The assessee for A.Y. 2007-08, faced addition of `1,34,584/-,
under Section 68 of the Act. This was based upon entries
shown as cash credits. Apparently, the AO during the course
of proceedings had summoned and recorded the statement of
the creditor who admitted accommodating the assessee, in
exchange of cash and after conceding that the transaction was
not genuine. The amounts were brought to tax under Section 68
of the Act, after AO held that the genuineness of the
ITA No.384/2017 Page 1
transaction was exposed. The Appellate Commissioner and the
ITAT affirmed the AO's findings in the regular quantum
appeals. The AO imposed in the subsequent proceedings
under Section 271 of the Act `45,301/- as penalty. This too
was carried in appeal to the Commissioner in the first instance
and thereafter to the ITAT. All appeals failed.
2. Mr. K.R. Manjani, learned counsel submits that the
facility of cross-examination was never afforded to the assessee
and the creditor had been examined in its absence. It was also
urged that in similar instances in the past, greater amounts were
advanced by the same creditor, but the AO did not raise any
objection.
3. This Court is of the opinion that given the finality to the
quantum proceedings which fixed the liability upon the income
of `1,34,584/- and the nature of the addition, the imposition of
penalty in the circumstances could not be faulted. The citing of
past instance or the lack of absence of cross-examination in no
way, in the opinion of the Court, vitiates the initiation and
culmination of penalty proceedings. No substantial question of
law arises.
4. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
DECEMBER 07, 2017/kks SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
ITA No.384/2017 Page 2
|