RAVI MAHESHWARI,MEERUT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2, MEERUT

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals], Meerut dated 22.12.2017 pertaining to assessment year 2009-10.

The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] on surrender of income of Rs. 2 lakhs.

Roots for levy of penalty lie in the assessment order dated 17.11.2016 framed u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act.

The completed assessment was reopened to examine the source of cash deposit of Rs. 2 lakhs in the bank account. Vide submission dated 03.11.2016, the assessee surrendered Rs. 2 lakhs as income of the assessee on account of undisclosed income. Assessment was complete on such concession and Rs. 2 lakhs was added. Penalty proceedings were separately initiated.

During the course of penalty proceedings, the assessee strongly contended that he surrendered Rs. 2 lakhs because he could not lay his hands on the bank statement to explain the source of cash deposited in the bank. It was claimed that the surrender was to purchase peace of mind and to avoid unnecessary litigation. The Assessing Officer was not convinced with the contention of the assessee and levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 62,000/-. The assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A), but without any success.

The CIT(A) confirmed the levy of penalty by drawing support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Max Data Pvt Ltd in Civil Appeal No. 9792/2013.

Before me, the ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated what has been stated before the lower authorities. The ld. AR drew my attention to the cash book filed before me. It is the say of the ld. AR that if the said cash book is examined, then the sources of cash deposit would be proved.

I have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below. There is no quarrel that the assessee has voluntarily and wilfully offered Rs. 2 lakhs for taxation. For the first time before me, the ld. AR has come up with the plea that necessary entries can be found from the cash book. I fail to understand why the cash book was not produced during the course of assessment proceedings/penalty proceedings and why the same were not produced before the CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings and during the appellate proceedings relating to penalty. It can be safely concluded that the cash book was prepared afterwards and, therefore, has no evidentiary value. Considering the facts of the case in hand in totality, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A).

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in is dismissed.