BHUMIKA NAVIN PATEL L/H OF LATE NAVINBHAI PUNJABHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), VADODARA

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद ायपीठ SMC,अहमदाबाद ।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

ी संजय गग, ाियक सद एवं
ी नरे !साद िस"ा, लेखा सद के सम%।
]
]

Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member And Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member

Sl.
No(s)
आयकर अपील सं/
ITA No(s)
िनधारण वष/
Assess- ment
Year(s)
Appeal(s) by :
अपीलाथ / थ /
Appellant बनाम/vs. Respondent

(Revenue)
2. 651/Ahd/2023
2007-08
Assessee
Revenue
3. 652/Ahd/2023
2008-09
Assessee
Revenue
4. 653/Ahd/2023
2009-10
Assessee
Revenue
5. 654/Ahd/2023
2010-11
Assessee
Revenue

Assessee by :
Shri Jigar Adhyaru, AR
Revenue by :
Shri Ravindra, Sr.DR
सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 07/05/2025
घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 31/07/2025

आदेश/O R D E R

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

Ms. Bhumika Navin Patel, Legal Heir of late Shri Navinbhai Punjabhai
Patel through the captioned appeals has agitated levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c)

ITA No.s 650 to 654/Ahd/2023
Bhumika Navin Patel
L/H. of Late Navinbhai Punjabhai Patel vs. ITO
Asst. Years : 2006-07 to 2010-11

of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for different
Assessment Years (AYs).

ITA No.s 650 to 654/Ahd/2023
Bhumika Navin Patel
L/H. of Late Navinbhai Punjabhai Patel vs. ITO
Asst. Years : 2006-07 to 2010-11

of Rs.49,34,647/- for AY 2008-09, of Rs.21,51,890/- for /AY 2009-10 and of Rs.62,22,690/- for AY 2010-11. 3.1. The AO also levied the impugned penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act in relation to aforesaid quantum additions confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A). The AO accordingly levied penalty of Rs.32,230/- for AY 2006-07, of Rs.8,41,280/- for AY 2007-08, of Rs.16,19,500/- for AY 2008-09, of Rs.6,23,800/- for AY 2009-
10 and of Rs.13,89,220/- for AY 2010-11. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid levy of penalty for different assessment years, the Legal Heir namely, Ms.Bhumika Navinbhai Patel of deceased assessee Shri Navinbhai Patel preferred appeals for different assessment years before the Ld.CIT(A), however, remained unsuccessful.
She , therefore, has come in appeals for different assessment years before this Tribunal.

assessment proceedings. Though the major amount was deposited through banking channel by way of cheque/bank transfer, however, the AO did not make any effort to enquire and verify the persons/sources of deposits, which he could have verified by calling the details of the deposits from the bank and by issuing notice to the depositor/the concerned person from whose bank account the aforesaid amounts were transferred to the account of the deceased assessee. Thus, the additions were made not on the basis of any substantive finding that the aforesaid deposits were the income of the assessee from unexplained sources, rather, the additions were made on the basis of presumption as the assessee could not explain the source of deposits as he had expired during the pendency of assessment proceedings. The Legal
Heir of the deceased assessee has already approached the Hon’ble High
Court raising the legal ground of validity of the additions made by the AO in the name of deceased assessee and the matter is pending before the Hon’ble
High Court. However, so far as the validity of levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) is concerned, we note that the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable, if the assessee has concealed his income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. It is the deceased assessee who could have betterexplained the source of deposits before the AO. The levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, requires culpability of the assessee in furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. It was the assessee, himself, who could have explained to the AO that whether he had furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed the income. It has been held, time and again, that mere deposit of an amount into the bank account of an assessee does not ipso facto lead to the presumption that the same is the income of the assessee. So far as the element of culpability is concerned, it has to be ITA No.s 650 to 654/Ahd/2023
Bhumika Navin Patel
L/H. of Late Navinbhai Punjabhai Patel vs. ITO
Asst. Years : 2006-07 to 2010-11

established that such an assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed his income. It was the assessee himself who could have proven his case before the AO. However, assessee was no more in this world even before the initiation of the penalty proceedings and as such was not expected to prove the non- culpability/innocence before the AO. It cannot be expected from the Legal Heir of deceased assessee to prove before the AO that the deceased assessee had not furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed his income. As noted above, the addition to the income of the deceased assessee was made on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and it was not a case, where it was conclusively proved that the said deposits were out of the income of the assessee source of which was not disclosed to the Income-tax authorities. Under the circumstances, in our view, it will not be justified to burden the Legal Heir of the assessee for the penal consequences relating to the act or omission of the deceased assessee, which otherwise, is not established on the file. Hence, under the circumstances, the impugned penalty levied/confirmed by the lower authorities is not sustainable and the same is, accordingly, ordered to be deleted relating the captioned assessment years.

ITA No.s 650 to 654/Ahd/2023
Bhumika Navin Patel
L/H. of Late Navinbhai Punjabhai Patel vs. ITO
Asst. Years : 2006-07 to 2010-11

आदेश की ितिलिप अ%ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :

अपीलीय

आयकर
,
अहमदाबाद/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad.
6. गाड फाईल /
Guard file.

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

सािपत ित ////

सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt.