2019 (2) TMI 1192 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - unexplained income u/s. 69A - HELD THAT - The matter travelled to Ld. CIT(A) and ITAT who vide their respective orders confirmed the addition and consequently, the AO imposed the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee has relied upon various case laws which he also relied upon before the CIT(A), but while citing the judgements and giving their head notes he has not been able to bring on record any similarity of facts between the judgment cited and the present appeal. The case of the assessee is very clear that he has no tangible explanation with regard to unexplained cash deposit which could absolve the assessee from rigour of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) hence, CIT(A) has rightly upheld the penalty in dispute and dismissed the appeal of the assessee, which does not need any interference on my part, therefore, uphold the action of the CIT(A) in upholding the penalty in dispute and accordingly reject the grounds raised by the Assessee. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Penalty imposed by CIT(A) against the facts and law.
2. Consideration of case laws by AO and CIT(A) in confirming penalty.
3. Right of the assessee to add, modify, or delete grounds during appeal proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The assessee filed an appeal against the penalty imposed and confirmed by CIT(A), challenging its validity. The assessee argued that the penalty was against the facts and law and should be set aside. However, the Tribunal upheld the penalty, stating that the assessee failed to provide a tangible explanation for unexplained cash deposits, justifying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. The AO and CIT(A) did not find the case laws quoted by the assessee to be sufficient to overturn the penalty. The Tribunal noted that while the assessee relied on various case laws, there was a lack of similarity between the cited judgments and the present appeal. The Tribunal found that the penalty was rightly upheld by CIT(A) as the assessee could not absolve themselves from the penalty under section 271(1)(c) due to the lack of a tangible explanation for the unexplained cash deposits.

3. The assessee claimed the right to add, modify, or delete grounds during the appeal proceedings. However, the Tribunal rejected the grounds raised by the assessee, emphasizing that the lack of a tangible explanation for the unexplained cash deposits led to the upholding of the penalty by CIT(A). The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee, affirming the decision of CIT(A) to impose and confirm the penalty.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the assessee, as the assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the unexplained cash deposits. The Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the decision of CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the assessee, reinforcing the penalty upheld by CIT(A).