KASHINATH LAXMAN MARDE,PALGHAR vs. ITO WD 3, PALGHAR

Assessee by: None Department by: Shri Tufail Ahmed Khan सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date of Hearing: 11.01.2017 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 15.02.2017 आदेश / O R D E R

PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM:

ITA No.5369.M.15 A.Y. 2009-10

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 01.09.2009 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.4,76,790/-. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Thereafter the assessment was completed on 27.09.2011 by making the addition of Rs.2,14,542/- and total income was determined to the tune of Rs.6,91,330/-. The penalty proceeding u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short “the Act”) was also initiated. During the assessment proceedings it was observed that the assessee had deposited cash totaling to Rs.2,00,000/- in his bank account. The details of which is hereby mentioned as under:- Sr. No. Date of Deposit Amount 1 15/04/2008 Rs.50,000/- 2 30/06/2008 Rs.75,000/- 3 07/07/2008 Rs.75,000/- Total Rs.2,00,000/- Thereafter, the assessee was asked to explain the source of the said deposit in the bank account. Assessee replied by virtue of letter dated 21.09.2011, that the assessee deposited cash in his TDCC Bank account on 01.06.2008 to ITA No.5369.M.15 A.Y. 2009-10 the tune of Rs.75,000/- and on 07.07.2008 to the tune of Rs.75,000/- which was generated by sales of Maruti Omni Car on 15.06.2008 to Mr. Sachin Acchewar Shah at Rs.1,52,000/- (as per agreement of Rs.1,55,000/- less Dalali Rs.3000/-) out of which Mr. Sachin Acchewar Shah paid Rs.55,000/- on 30.05.2008 and balance on 15.06.2008. The copy of agreement was also attached. The explanation of the assessee was found geniune therefore an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was treated as unexplained cash deposit and penalty proceeding was initiated and after the reply of the assessee the penalty to the tune of Rs.50,896/- was imposed which was confirmed by the CIT(A) by virtue of order in question, therefore, the present appeal has been filed before us by the assessee. ISSUE NO.1:- 4. Under this issue the assessee has challenged the confirmation of the order passed by the Assessing Officer vide which the penalty to the tune of Rs.50,896/- has been confirmed by the CIT(A). The contention of the assessee is that the assessee failed to show the sale proceed of the cash in his account in advertently but to buy the peace of mind the assessee paid the tax on the assurance of the Officer to not to levy the penalty, therefore, the penalty is not liable to be leviable in accordance with law. This contention of the assessee has been assailed by the Departmental and placed reliance upon the law settled in [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC) Mak Data P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. 5. Keeping in view of the argument advanced by the Ld DR for Revenue parties and perusing the record carefully, it came into the notice that the ITA No.5369.M.15 A.Y. 2009-10