Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: SH. H.S. SIDHU
The Assessee has filed the Appeal against the Order dated
14.5.2018 of the Ld. CIT(A), Meerut pertaining to assessment year 2009-
10 on the following grounds:-
That the penalty of Rs. 1,27,226/- imposed and
confirmed by CIT(A) is against the facts and law and
liable to be set aside in favour of the assessee.
That the AO as well as CIT(A) has not considered
the case laws quoted by the assessee, hence, CIT(A)
is in error in confirming the penalty.
That the assessee has right to add, modify or delete
any grounds during the appeal proceeding.
The brief facts of the case are that assessee has field his return
showing total income of Rs. 1,49,000/- and during the assessment
proceeding the assessee has replied all the queries raised by the AO.
The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
(in short “Act”) on total income of Rs. 8,77,400/-. The assessee not
accepted the order of the AO and filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A),
Meerut, who vide his order has dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee appealed before the
Tribunal, which was also dismissed. The AO has imposed the penalty
under section 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,27,266/- vide order
dated 10.10.2017 and aggrieved with the said penalty order, the
assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order
dated 14.5.2018 has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Against the
impugned order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
During the hearing, Ld. counsel for the assessee has stated that the
cash deposited by the assessee was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), but the
penalty proceedings are different from assessment proceeding merely
addition confirmed does not fulfill the conditions to impose penalty. The
AO has not bring any facts that the assessee willfully conceal or furnished
accurate particulars of income, hence, he relied upon the case of Rekha
Agarwal decided in ITA No. 1024/Del/2013, ITAT, ‘F’ Bench, Delhi dated
31.12.2014 and also relied upon various case laws, which he also relied
upon before the Ld. CIT(A).
On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A)
and stated that he has passed a well reasoned order, which does not need
any interference.
I have heard both the parties and perused the records especially the
impugned order. I note that the AIR information was received in this case
wherein it was stated that assessee having cash deposit of Rs.
17,75,600/- and AO completed the assessment after considering the
replies and held that Rs. 7,28,400/- was unexplained income u/s. 69A of
the Act. The matter travelled to Ld. CIT(A) and ITAT who vide their
respective orders dated 22.12.2016 and 6.6.2017 confirmed the addition
and consequently, the AO imposed the penalty of Rs. 1,27,226/- u/s.
271(1)(c) of the Act. I find Ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied upon
various case laws which he also relied upon before the Ld. CIT(A), but
while citing the judgements and giving their head notes he has not been
able to bring on record any similarity of facts between the judgment cited
and the present appeal. However, the case of the assessee is very clear
that he has no tangible explanation with regard to unexplained cash
deposit which could absolve the assessee from rigour of penalty u/s.
271(1)(c) of the Act, hence, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly upheld the penalty in
dispute and dismissed the appeal of the assessee, which does not need
any interference on my part, therefore, I uphold the action of the Ld.
CIT(A) in upholding the penalty in dispute and accordingly reject the
grounds raised by the Assessee.
In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced on 19-02-2019.
Sd/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER Date: 19/02/2019
SRBhatnagar