9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2558X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed without verifying the facts of the case and considering new plea contrary to the facts on record and contrary to the Rule 29 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. 2. That both, the Assessing Officer and the Hon'ble ITAT have made the assessment just on the basis of assumptions, hypothetical irrelevant statements and diversifications and were remain failed in verifying the facts of the case and documents presented by the appellant before them and accordingly penalty U/s 271(1)(c) is not attracted as both the orders were made merely based on estimation of income which at all does not mean concealment. 3. That no penalty is warranted both on facts as well as in law. 4. That it is not correct to estimate the savings of a person at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... meaning of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, he imposed penalty under this Section at Rs. 25,028/-, which is 100% of tax sought to be evaded on concealing the income. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter before the learned CIT(A), who had confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer by observing as under:- "3.3 I have considered the contentions of the appellant as well as assessment order. It is seen that in this case the A.O. had made the addition of unexplained cash deposit of Rs. 15,51,000/- in undisclosed bank account in the Union Bank of India. The ld CIT(A) has decided the issue in the quantum appeal regarding the source of above deposits as under: "7.3 Appellant e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A) has mentioned that assessee was already given the benefit of cash availability by way of Rs. 15,000 deposited by the assessee in the ICICI bank and Rs. 82,800 spent by the assessee for the stamp papers and registry charges for purchase of the new house. So, it has been mentioned that benefit of the savings or accumulation in the hands of the assessee has already been given (Rs. 15,000 + Rs. 82,000) to the assessee and the source of deposit of Rs. 81,000 remain unexplained and it represents unaccounted income of the assessee. During appeal, it has been pointed out that the Hon'ble ITAT has confirmed the above addition of Rs. 81,000 alongwith other additions made by the A.O.. The assessee in his submissions merely emphasized against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ours of the assessment time even knowing the fact that all of the loaners are from Ahmadabad. In the reply by the AR on 23/12/2010 given in Dak, this only fact was mentioned that it is not possible to produce the cash loaners within such a short notice, hence assessee's sought time for production of them. The appellant had never denied for producing the loaners for examination. Thus, it is merely the case of non acceptance of cogent and reasonable explanation as well as evidences placed before the Assessing Officer, in whose opinion, the same were not acceptable. Nevertheless, the said fact cannot be termed as either furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. The mere fact that the explanation given by the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. The assessee has deposited cash in the bank account, which has not been explained by him, therefore, the ld CIT(A) has confirmed the addition to the extent of Rs. 81,000/-. Thereafter, the assessee has not filed appeal before the ITAT on addition restricted to Rs. 81,000/- against the order of CIT(A) but revenue has filed appeal before the ITAT, who had partly reversed the order of the ld CIT(A) and addition was confirmed by the ITAT at Rs. 12.50 lacs against the original addition of Rs. 15.51 lacs. The assessee has filed appeal before the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court on confirming addition of Rs. 12.50 lacs by the ITAT. The explanation filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m liability of penalty. The material fact is that the assessee offered any explanation for concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income to be seen. Penalty proceeding and satisfaction of the Assessing Officer need not be recorded in a particular manner. Therefore, the assessee does not get any immunity from the penalty on the ground that appeal has been admitted before the Hon'ble High Court which also does not make issue before the Hon'ble High Court debatable. The fact is that the assessee had deposited cash from undisclosed source, which has not been explained by him before the lower authority. Thus we confirm the order of the ld CIT(A). 7. In the result, the assessee's appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
