9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2558X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty 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). - Decided against assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was made by the Assessing Officer and addition on account of unexplained cash deposited in Union Bank of India at ₹ 15.51 lacs was added by the Assessing Officer, which was partly deleted by the ld CIT(A) and in finality, only addition of ₹ 81,000/- was sustained by the ld CIT(A). Before imposing penalty U/s 271(1)(c), the ld Assessing Officer gave reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee also replied in response to show cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer. After considering the assessee's reply, the ld Assessing Officer held that the assessee had deposited cash in same bank account maintained in Union Bank of India without having no cash balance. Therefore, source of cash of ₹ 81,000/- were unexplain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t have been accepted by the undersigned. Thus no further cash is likely to remain with appellant for making this deposit. Therefore source of this sum of ₹ 81,000 remains unexplained. I hold that addition to the extent of ₹ 81,000/- is justified. A.O. is directed to restrict addition in respect of cash deposits in Union Bank of India to ₹ 81,000/- as against ₹ 15,51,000/- made by him. Ground No. 5 is thus partly allowed. As regarding the issue under consideration, there were deposits of ₹ 11,50,000 + ₹ 3,20,000 + ₹ 81,000 in the Union Bank of India. Out of above deposits, the assessee claimed the amount of ₹ 11,50,000 being out of loans received from 63 persons from Ahmedabad and ₹ 3,2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bank account and it represented the income of the assessee which was not disclosed in the return of income. As the assessee has not been able to justify the savings so claimed and has not been able to substantiate the source of cash deposits in any manner, the penalty levied by the A.O. is confirmed." 4. Now the assessee is in appeal before us. No one appeared on behalf of the assessee but written submissions has been filed. In written submissions, it has been stated that against the quantum addition, the assessee had filed appeal before the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court. Therefore, penalty should not have imposed by the Assessing Officer as the matter is debatable. The appellant has well in time have furnished all the details required ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt of the appellant. In so far as filing of second appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT is concerned, against the appeal order passed by the ld CIT(A), Ajmer confirming the addition of ₹ 81,000/-, it is submitted that no further appeal was preferred in order to buy peace as well as to avoid protracted litigation keeping in view the fact that the appellant is non-functional and a physically handicapped senior citizen. Therefore, penalty imposed U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not justified. In support of the submissions, following case laws has been cited:- (i) Sir Shadilal Sugar & General Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT (1987) 168 ITR 705 (SC). (ii) CIT Vs. Baroda Tin Works (1996) 221 ITR 661 (Guj). (iii) CIT Vs Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel (1983) 139 ITR 10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT Vs. Dharamshi B Shah [2014] 366 ITR 140 (Guj) wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that appeal to the High Court does not empower to delete the penalty by the ITAT. The assessee's contention also not acceptable that there was no guilty conscious of the assessee to conceal the income. Now this issue has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. DHARMENDRA TEXTILES PROCESSORS AND OTHERS [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that income tax is civil liability and the Assessing Officer is not required to prove the mens rea of the assessee to conceal the income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
