RANVEER SINGH CHAUHAN,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), MEERUT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7890/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 January 2020AY 2015-164 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order confirming the penalty. The assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations for the cash deposit and the undisclosed long-term capital gains before the lower authorities.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income declaring Rs. 3,84,120/-. The AO completed the assessment at Rs. 45,79,404/-, adding Rs. 20 lacs as unexplained cash deposit and also adding long term capital gain. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, confirming the Rs. 20 lacs addition and modifying the capital gains.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income is justified when the assessee failed to explain cash deposits and undisclosed capital gains.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F+SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. R. K. PANDA & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam
Hearing: 30/01/2020Pronounced: 30/01/2020

ORDER PER R.K PANDA, AM:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 03.10.2018 of the CIT(A), Meerut relating to A.Y.2015-16.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of four notices by registry through RPAD. No petition seeking adjournment of the case has been filed. We, therefore, deem it proper to decide the issue on the basis of material available on record and after hearing the Ld. DR.

3.

The assessee in its ground of appeal

has basically challenging the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the penalty of Rs.8,54,173/- levied by the AO u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the IT Act.

4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and had filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs.3,84,120/-. The AO completed the assessment u/s. 143 (3) on 18.12.2017 determining the total income at Rs.45,79,404/- wherein he made addition on account of cash deposit of Rs. 20 lacs and had added long term capital gain. The Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee wherein he confirmed the addition of Rs. 20 lacs as unexplained cash deposit and modified the long term capital gain. The AO thereafter initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act and levied penalty of Rs.8,54,173/- being penalty @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded.

5. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty levied by the AO by observing as under :-

“I have perused the facts of the case and taken note of the assessment order, my appeal order dated 28.02.2018 and the consequential appeal effect order dated 31.03.2018 and the impugned penalty order along with the arguments given by the ld. AR. In this case the basis fact is that in the return originally filed the appellant had only shown salary income which the AO has downloaded from the system and the placed on record. From the Page | 2 perusal of the downloaded sheet showing computation of income, for the A.Y. 2015- 16, i.e the year under consideration, it is seen other than salaries income the assessee has shown nothing by way of capital gain or any details regarding cash deposits of Rs,A0 lacs which has been added by the AO and the confirmed by the CIT(A) in appeal order. As regards capital gains I have given certain relief based on judicial precedents which the AO has accounted for while giving appeal effect thereafter the AO has duly considered the arguments given by the Id. AR and has passed the impugned penalty order. In appeal before me the Id. AR of the appellant has simply repeated all the arguments given during the quantum appeal order and has not brought any material or argument specifically to assail the penalty order. In view of this position I find no reason to interfere in the penalty order and the present appeal cannot be sustained on any ground. Thus the penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is hereby confirmed.”

6.

Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal 7. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. We find no satisfactory explanation was given by the assessee either before the AO or before the CIT(A) regarding cash deposit of Rs.20 lacs for which the same was added to the total income of the assessee. Further, the assessee was also unable to substantiate the long term capital gain not disclosed by him in the return of income. Since the assessee has concealed his particular of income within the meaning of provisions of 271 (1) (c) of the IT Act., therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the penalty levied by the AO. Accordingly the order of the CIT(A) is upheld and grounds raised

by the assessee are dismissed.

8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.01.2020.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →