TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1653X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed:- 22-9-2017 - Pramod Kumar, AM and Mahavir Prasad, JM Divyakant K. Parikh for the appellant Alok Kumar for the respondent O R D E R Per Pramod Kumar, AM: 1. By way of this appeal, the assessee appellant has challenged correctness of the order dated 8th October 2014, passed by the learned CIT(A)-XVI, Ahmedabad, confirming penalty of ₹ 13,00,990/- for the assessment year 2010-11, on the following grounds :- 1. The Id. CIT(Appeals) erred both in law and on facts in confirming the penalty of ₹ 13,00,990/- levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 1961 in respect of alleged undisclosed income added u/s 69 on voluntary surrender made by the appellant. The Id. CIT(Appeals) failed to appre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on AIR information available with the assessee, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has deposited a sum aggregating to ₹ 43,72,650/- on various dates in cash in his savings bank account. When the Assessing Officer probed the matter further, the assessee submitted that he was in the business of used cloths and the profit margin of this business after deducting various expenses is very low at 3 to 4%. This stand was, however, not accepted and the Assessing Officer proceeded to add the entire amount as income of the assessee. The matter did not stop there. Assessing Officer also imposed penalty of ₹ 13,00,990/- being equivalent to 100% tax sought to be evaded in respect of such income. Aggrieved, assessee carried the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tter of fact, his return only shows interest income and salary income. When we put it to the assessee as to why he did not disclose, going by his version, any business income, the assessee has nothing to say. In these circumstances, in our considered view, the penalty deserves to be confirmed at least to the extent of reasonable profit on turnover of the assessee reflecting by cash deposits. Thus, as against an addition of ₹ 43,72,650/- penalty to the extent relatable to addition of ₹ 4,37,265/- will certainly be justified. Learned counsel for the assessee does not also dispute this position. As regards the balance quantum addition, we find that similar deposits have been treated as deposits in the course of business, in past, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
