TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... And Mr. Justice Goverdhan Bardhar For the Appellant(s) : Shri Anant Kasliwal For the Respondent(s) : Noone JUDGMENT (PER HON BLE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ. J.) This appeal has been preferred by assessee against the judgement of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 19.3.2018, which has upheld the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The facts of the case are that the proceeding for assessment was carried out by the respondent-assessing authority against the appellant under Section 142(1) of the Act. The case of the appellant has been that he received notice u/s.142(1) on 3.8.2007 even though the time prescribed for initiation of assessment proceedings came to an end on 31.7.2007. Thereafter, ano ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Appellate Tribunal by way of second appeal. The Tribunal has dismissed the appeal vide order dated 13.2.2015. Based on the assessment order dated 20.11.2011, the Income Tax Officer vide notice dated 30.12.2008, initiated proceedings for levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c). In the course of proceedings for levy of penalty, the Assessing Officer recorded that the assessee has deposited various cash amounts in his own bank account totalling to ₹ 15,25,000, but he failed to furnish the explanation of the sources for such cash amount. This unexplained amount has been treated as assessee s undisclosed income. The stand of the appellant-assessee, however, was that as per the documents sought to be placed on record by way of application under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bank account and the assessee failed to explain the source of such deposits and therefore when the assessee has failed to explain the source, the said addition was confirmed even upto the stage of the Tribunal. In the penalty proceedings, the only defence available to the assessee would be that though the explanation of the assessee was not accepted by the Assessing Officer, however, the same is bonafide. The Tribunal however noted that the assessee has not furnished any explanation either before the Assessing Officer in the penalty proceedings or before the CIT(A) in the appellate proceedings. The Tribunal further noted that the assessee has not uttered even a single sentence about the source of the deposit made in the bank account and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 24.10.2017. Learned counsel also relied on the judgement of coordinate bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading Rubber Industries, ITA No.542/2008 decided on 19.9.2013. Learned counsel again argued that this Court has not correctly appreciated the fact that the notice dated 24.7.2007 was served on the appellant on 3.8.2007 and according to Section 142(1), the notice was required to be served on or before 31.7.2007 and since it was served on 31.7.2007, the proceedings became time barred and thus the action of the Assessing Officer was incompetent. Coordinate bench of this Court in the earlier judgement dated 25.4.2016 has rejected the aforesaid argument by relying on judgements of various High Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
