TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 508X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tances, we do not have any other option but to confirm the penalty levied by the Revenue. Accordingly, we hereby confirm the penalty levied - Decided against assessee - I .T.A. Nos. 372 & 373/Mds/2015 - - - Dated:- 4-3-2016 - SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Mr. R.Sivaraman, Advocate For The Respondent : Dr.B.Nischal, JCIT ORDER Per A. Mohan Alankamony, AM:- Both these appeals are filed by the assessee aggrieved by the separate orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-15, Chennai dated 13.01.2015 in ITA No.1596 1062/13-14/A-15 passed under section 144/147 r.w.s.250 and 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA No.372/Mds/2015:- 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the addition of ₹ 200,82,00,000/- in the hands of the assessee as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act by holding as under:- I have considered the submissions of the AR of the appellant as well as the findings given in the assessment order carefully. As stated in the order of assessment, the AO had given ample opportunities vide his office letters dated 05.11.2012, 24.01.2013 and 18.02.2013 to furnish the details of the sources of investments made of ₹ 2,00,82,000/- No compliance was made before the AO even in the second round of assessment proceedings. Even before the appellate proceedings, the AR of the appellant was given numerous opportunities to furnish the eviden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view of the AO to tax an amount of ₹ 200,82,00,000/- under the head unexplained investment u/s 69 of the IT Act. 5. Before us also, the learned Authorized Representative could not furnish any materials to explain the source of investment of the assessee for ₹ 200,82,00,000/-. Therefore, we do not have any other option but to confirm the order of the Revenue on this issue. Accordingly, we hereby confirm the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer which was further sustained by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). ITA No.373/Mds/2015:- 6. Since the assessee has not explained the source of investment of ₹ 200,82,00,000/- before the Revenue, the learned Assessing Officer made addition under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submissions made by the AR of the appellant and also findings of the AD in the order of penalty dated 23.09.2013. I have also perused the order of CIT(A)- 15, Chennai in ITA No.1596/13-14/A-15, dated 13.01.2015 confirming the addition of ₹ 200,82,00,000/- made by the AD in the assessment order passed u/s 144/147/254 dated 01.03.2013. The facts of the issue under consideration was that the appellant failed to offer satisfactory explanation about the source of investment of ₹ 200,82,00,000/- made by the appellant with VSNL during the year under consideration. Inspite of numerous opportunities granted by the AO in the course of assessment proceedings and also by the undersigned in the course of appellate proceedings in ITA No.1596 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no basis and same was offered to escape from levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. The case of the assessee falls under explanation 1 to Sec.271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The ratio of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. cited by the AR of the appellant is not applicable to the facts of the case and same is distinguishable on facts. On the other hand, the ratios of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India rendered in the case of K.P Madhusudhan Vs CIT reported in 251 ITR 99 (SC), in the case of CIT Vs Atul Mohan Bindal 317 ITR l(SC), in the case of Union of India Vs Dharmendra Textile Processors reported in 306 ITR 277(SC), in the case of Union of India Vs Rajasthan Spinning M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
