2013 (3) TMI 621 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - unexplained cash deposits - assessment was finalized under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C r.w.s. 153A - Held that - Since the assessee has offered no justification at all, we hold that the CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the penalties under challenge. See CIT v. Mak Data Ltd. 2013 (1) TMI 574 - DELHI HIGH COURT - Decided against assessee. Assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 - non providing of oppurtunity for hearing - Held that - No material has been filed before us by the assessee so as to prove that the findings of the lower authorities are contrary to the evidence available on record. Although in the reassessment order, the Assessing Officer mention the proceedings as under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act , the assessment order also proves that the assessee was offered adequate opportunity of hearing and he had also filed written submissions which were considered by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, in subsistence, it is not an ex-parte assessment order. Accordingly, we reject the arguments of the assessee that he was not offered opportunity of hearing by the Assessing Officer. So far as arguments on merits are concerned, we have make it clear apart from the bald assertion raised in the grounds of appeal, there is no material available on record that the findings of the CIT(A) on merits suffer from any misreading of documents on record. Therefore, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) under challenge.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Confirmation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Validity of reassessment proceedings under section 147.
3. Adequacy of opportunity provided to the assessee during assessment proceedings.
4. Justification for additions made in the reassessment order.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Confirmation of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c):

The primary issue in these appeals is the confirmation of penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalties were imposed for unexplained cash deposits and undisclosed income. The assessee argued that the penalties should be dropped because he cooperated during the assessment proceedings and paid the taxes. However, the Revenue supported the penalties, citing the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. MAK DATA Ltd., which states that the absence of any explanation is considered as concealment of income. The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not provide any explanation for the unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 2.5 lakhs and Rs. 11 lakhs, and thus upheld the penalties.

2. Validity of Reassessment Proceedings under Section 147:

In one of the appeals (I.T.A. No. 2297/Mds/2012), the assessee challenged the reassessment proceedings under section 147, arguing that there were no tangible or fresh materials justifying the assumption of jurisdiction. The Tribunal noted that the reassessment was initiated on the ground of a cash deficit of Rs. 16,58,549 which escaped assessment. The Tribunal found that the assessee had been given adequate opportunity to present his case and had filed written submissions, which were considered by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were held valid.

3. Adequacy of Opportunity Provided to the Assessee:

The assessee contended that he was not given a proper opportunity of hearing during the assessment proceedings. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee had filed written submissions, which were considered by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal concluded that adequate opportunity was provided to the assessee, and the reassessment order was not an ex-parte order. Thus, the argument of lack of opportunity was rejected.

4. Justification for Additions Made in the Reassessment Order:

The assessee also challenged the additions made in the reassessment order, specifically the addition of Rs. 16,58,549 as unexplained cash deficit. The Tribunal upheld the findings of the lower authorities, noting that the assessee failed to provide any material evidence to contradict the findings. The Tribunal confirmed the addition, stating that the CIT(A)'s order did not suffer from any misreading of documents on record.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals, confirming the penalties under section 271(1)(c) for unexplained cash deposits and undisclosed income. The reassessment proceedings under section 147 were held valid, and the Tribunal found that adequate opportunity was provided to the assessee. The additions made in the reassessment order were also upheld. The order was pronounced on March 18, 2013, in Chennai.