RAJPUT REALTORS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(3)(3), MUMBAI

The present appeal of the assessee is time barred of 82 days and application for condonation of delay along with affidavit has been filed. Considering the submissions of the assessee which are supported with the affidavit, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Now coming to the merits of the case.

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 26.03.2013 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2007-08 agitating the confirmation of the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act at the rate of 300% of the tax sought to be evaded.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had made deposits amounting to Rs.20,20,000/-, the sources of which the assessee could not prove

In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the said penalty.

Before us, the Ld. A.R. of the assessee has submitted that the deposits were made from different parties for booking of the plots. However, the scheme did not mature and that the assessee had refunded the amounts to the parties. He has further submitted that the names of the parties were supplied to the AO but the PAN number of the parties could not be supplied as there were various depositors and the money was received in cash through various agents. He, therefore, has stated that though the additions have been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) for lack of evidence on the part of assessee to prove genuineness of the transactions, however, it was not a case of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

The Ld. D.R., on the other hand, has relied upon the findings of the lower authorities.

We have heard the rival contentions and have also gone through the records. The undisputed facts of the case are that certain deposits were found into the account of the assessee. The assessee has failed to discharge its 3 M/s. Rajput Realtors P. Ltd. burden to prove the source of deposits. The assessee could not prove its contentions regarding deposits received from various parties with any credible evidence. Even the assessee could not supply the addresses and the PAN numbers of the parties. We, therefore, find justification on the part of the lower authorities in levying the penalty in this case under section 271(1)(c) of the Act as it is a clear cut case of concealment of income. However, the penalty levied at the rate of 300% of the tax sought to be evaded appears on a higher side. Keeping in view of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty is reduced to the 100% of the tax sought to be evaded.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed.