9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 611X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AYs. 2012-13 & 2013-14. 2. The grievances raised being common, both the cases were heard together and disposed of by the common order. 3. We shall first take up assessee's appeal in ITA No. 524/Ahd/2018 concerning AY 2012-13. ITA No. 524/Ahd/2018-AY-2012-13 (Assessee's appeal) 4. As per its grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged the order of the CIT(A) in sustaining the penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act to the extent of Rs. 1,69,855/- for concealment of income. 5. Briefly stated, the assessment of the assessee was carried out under s.143(3) of the Act wherein addition of Rs. 13,10,400/- was made in the hands of the assessee on account of unexplained cash deposits in bank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed income of the assessee." As a consequence of the ITAT's order, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO towards imposition of penalty to the extent of addition sustained. The penalty imposed of Rs. 3,39,710/- was accordingly scaled down by the CIT(A) to Rs. 1,69,855/-. 6. Aggrieved by the partial confirmation of penalty, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The learned AR for the assessee relied upon the order of the ITAT and submitted that in the light of the order of the ITAT one cannot say with clarity that the cash deposits in the bank account are unexplained. The addition has been made out on estimated basis which does not warrant onerous imposition of penalty. The learned AR also relied upon the order of the ITAT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on'ble ITAT is reproduced as under:- "Para 9 : There is no dispute that Rs. 39,00,300/- was found to be deposited in the Saving Bank account with Indushul Bank in AY.2011-I2 and Rs. 13,10,400/- was found to be deposited in AY.2012-13. It is equally true that the explanation of the assessee is without any substance. However, at the same lime, on perusing the ledger account of IndusInd Bank, we find that whenever the cash was deposited, it was immediately transferred to M/s. Shri Krishna Cargo. Therefore, the contentions that the same forms part of the business receipts cannot be brushed aside lightly. Para 10 : The assessee has not furnished any detail in support of its claim of business receipts. In our considered opinion and consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. The contention of the appellant that the AO is not affirm about the charges is not correct. In the case of Snita Transport (P.) Ltd. 221 Taxman 217, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has held as under:- "9. Regarding the contention that the Assessing Officer was ambivalent regarding wider which head the penalty was being imposed namely for concealing the particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, we may record that though in the assessment order the Assessing Officer did order initiation of penalty on both counts, in the ultimate order of penalty that he passed, he clearly held that levy of penalty is sustained in view of the fact that the assesses had concealed the particulars of income. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perusal of penalty order clearly shows that the AO has given a clear finding that it is a fit case for levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 3.6. Further the Hon'ble ITAT has categorically stated in its order that the assessee has not furnished any details in support of his claim of business receipts. A perusal of order- of the Hon'ble ITAT clearly shows that the appellant has failed to furnish explanation regarding the cash deposits. The Hon'ble ITAT has sustained additions of 50% as the assessee has failed to furnish explanation for entire amount of the cash deposits. The appellant's contention that it becomes an estimate addition is not correct as the addition made by the AO is not at all on any estimates. There ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nita Transport (P.) Ltd. 221 Taxman 217 (Guj). In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, we do not see any merit in the alternative contention of the assessee as well. The reliance placed on behalf of the assessee on the decision of the co-ordinate bench in Shri Anil Yashpal Khosla (supra) is totally misplaced. The explanation in respect of cash deposited in that case was found to be reasonable in view of certain affidavits of third party filed which remained unverified by the AO. No such facts have been shown to exist in the present case. In the peculiar facts of the case, the nature of concealment was clear to the assessee and no prejudice has been caused to the assessee per se by such alleged technical defect. The C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
