JASHIBEN DASHRATHBHAI PATEL,KALOL vs. ITO, WARD-4, MEHSANA

The solitary ground of appeal of the assessee is against the decision of ld. CIT(A) in confirming the penalty levied by the assessing officer of Rs. 3,32,243/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the act.

The fact in brief is that assessment u/s. 144 r.w.s. section 147 of the act was made on 28th Jan, 2016 and total income was assessed at Rs. 1159140/-. No return of income was filed by the assessee. At the time of assessment, the assessing officer has noticed as per AIR information the assessee has made cash deposits of Rs. 11,54,000/- in her saving bank account maintained with Axis Bank Ltd. During the course of assessment, the assessee was asked to explain the source of cash deposit with relevant supporting evidences, the assessee has not made any compliance. However, the assessing officer has treated the cash deposit as unexplained and added to the total income of the assessee. The assessing officer has also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the act. In response to the show cause notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the act neither the assessee has attended the proceedings nor furnished any submission before the assessing officer. Consequently, the assessing officer has levied minimum penalty @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded on unexplained cash deposit to the amount of Rs. 11,59,000/- at Rs. 3,32,243/-

During the course of appellate proceedings before us, at the outset, the ld. counsel has brought to our notice that the ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 8th June, 2018 has restricted the addition to extent of Rs. 3,45,000/- on the basis of peak amount as against addition of Rs. 11,59,0000/- made by the assessing officer. Therefore, the ld. counsel has contended that the penalty levied in the case of the assessee be restricted to the extent of quantum addition sustained by the ld. CIT(A). The ld. departmental representative was fair enough not to contradict these undisputed facts pleaded by the ld. counsel on the basis of order of ld. CIT(A). Under the circumstances, we Page No 3 Jasiben Dashrathbhai Patel vs. ITO direct the assessing officer to compute the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) on the amount of Rs. 3,45,000/- sustained by the ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 8th June, 2018. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.