IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : SMC-I : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3385/Del/2016 Assessment Year : 2007-08 R.L. Traders, Vs. ITO, 2046, Katra Tobacco, Ward-47(1), Khari Baoli, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AAAFR5508C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.R. Manjani, Advocate Department By : Shri N.K. Bawal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 17.10.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 17.10.2016 ORDER This appeal by assessee is directed against order passed by CIT(A) on 5.5.2016 in relation to assessment year 2007-08, upholding penalty of Rs.45,301/- imposed by Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 271(1)(c) of Income-tax ACT, 1961. 2. Briefly stated, facts of case are that assessee showed certain unsecured loans in his books of account. During course of assessment proceedings, assessee was asked to produce creditor ITA No.3385/Del/2016 Shri Pradeep Kumar Bansal, from whom assessee had declared to have availed loan in his individual as well as HUF capacity amounting to Rs.50,000 each. assessee was further requested that creditor should be asked to bring proof in support of identity and credit worthiness. assessee, vide his letter dated 2.11.2009, asked AO to summon Shri Pradeep Kumar Bansal. Complying with such request, AO issued summons u/s 131, in response to which Shri Pradeep Kumar Bansal attended proceedings. His statement was recorded. In reply to question No.10, he submitted that he gave entry loan of Rs.50,000/- to assessee in exchange of cash of Rs.50,000/-, which was not genuine loan transaction. Similarly, entry loan of Rs.50,000/- was admitted to have been given in HUF capacity, which was also not genuine. AO made addition of Rs.1 lac apart from disallowance of interest amounting to Rs.34,584/-. assessee remained unsuccessful before ld. CIT(A) in quantum proceedings. Similar was fate of assessee before Tribunal. Vide order dated 14.8.2015, Tribunal in ITA No.4495/Del/2013, affirmed addition made by AO. assessee s contention that statement of Shri Pradeep Kumar Bansal 2 ITA No.3385/Del/2016 was recorded at his back and, hence, addition should be deleted, was turned down by Tribunal by noticing that Sh. Bansal was assessee s witness. Further, in absence of any other evidence to prove genuineness of transaction, Tribunal confirmed addition. assessee s miscellaneous application also came to be dismissed by tribunal. In mean time, AO imposed penalty @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded on concealed income of Rs.1,34,584/-, being amount of addition of Rs.1 lac and interest claimed to have been paid on such loans. assessee remained unsuccessful before ld. CIT(A) as well. That is how appeal is before Tribunal. 3. I have heard rival submissions and perused relevant material on record. It is noticed that Shri Pradeep Kumar Bansal appeared before AO at instance of assessee. It was assessee alone, who did not produce creditor and rather requested AO to issue summons. That led to issuance of summons by AO. Shri Pradeep Kumar Bansal admitted before AO in his statement, copy of which is available on record, that he gave only entry loan of Rs.50,000/- to assessee in exchange of cash of Rs.50,000/- and it was not genuine 3 ITA No.3385/Del/2016 transaction. Similar was position as regards alleged loan given by his HUF. This stand of AO has been affirmed up to level of Tribunal. No doubt, assessment and penalty proceedings are independent of each other. I find that in penalty proceedings too, assessee has not brought on record anything to substantiate genuineness of transaction. There is no retraction by Shri Pradeep Kumar Bansal from statement given before AO. These facts go to show that assessee failed to prove genuineness of transaction and, consequently, in my considered opinion, penalty has been rightly imposed and confirmed. I, therefore, uphold same. 4. In result, appeal is dismissed. order pronounced in open court on 17.10.2016. Sd/- [R.S. SYAL] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated, 17th October, 2016. dk 4 ITA No.3385/Del/2016 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI. 5 R.L. Traders v. ITO, Ward-47(1), New Delhi