SHRI PRADIPKUMAR JETHABHAI PATEL,ANAND vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ANAND
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that while the AO was justified in making an addition due to unexplained cash deposits, the penalty should not be levied on the entire peak credit. Considering the opening cash balance, the peak credit was reduced, and the penalty was directed to be re-computed on this reduced amount.
What were the facts?
The assessee deposited a significant amount of cash in their savings bank account. The Assessing Officer (AO) added a portion of this deposit, representing the peak credit balance, to the assessee's income as the sources were not satisfactorily explained. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were initiated.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable on the entire peak credit addition when the assessee provided some explanation for the cash deposits, and if the penalty amount should be re-computed considering the opening balance.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH
Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA & SHRI S.S. GODARA
PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal by the Assessee is preferred against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-4, Vadodara dated 26.12.2014 pertaining to A.Y. 2008-09.
ITA No. 538/Ahd/2015 2 . A.Y. 2008-09 2. The only grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 1,09,133/- levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.
The roots for the levy of penalty lie in the assessment order dated 27.12.2010 framed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. While scrutinizing the return of income, the A.O. found that the assessee has deposited cash in the Savings Bank Account of Canara Bank to the tune of Rs. 14,71,950/-. Assessee was asked to furnish the sources of the cash deposited in the Savings Bank account. Assessee filed a detailed reply explaining the sources of funds. The explanation of the assessee did not find any favour with the A.O.. However, the A.O. accepted the plea of the assessee that the Peak credit balance should only be added and accordingly made the addition of Rs. 3,74,286/-. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) were separately initiated.
During the course of the penal proceedings, the assessee was asked to explain why penalty should not be levied for concealing the particulars of income to the extent of the peak credit disallowance of Rs. 3,74,286/-.
On receiving no plausible reply, the A.O. levied the penalty of Rs. 1,09,133/-.
Assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) but without any success.
Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee stated that the assessee has given complete explanation to the sources of cash deposited in the Savings Bank account. It is the say of the ld. counsel that it was explained during the course of the assessment proceedings that the money has been borrowed from friends and relatives who are agriculturists their names and address were also
ITA No. 538/Ahd/2015 3 . A.Y. 2008-09 furnished. The ld. counsel stated that merely because the assessee could not substantiate its claim would not ipso facto enable the A.O. to levy penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.
The ld. D.R. supported the findings of the revenue authorities.
We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. We have also carefully perused the assessment order and the facts relating to the additions made in the assessment. It is true that the cash found to be deposited in the bank account was not explained to the satisfaction of the A.O. and therefore the peak credit balance has been added. A perusal of the bank statement shows that the assessee was having opening cash balance of Rs. 2,59,086/- for which no credit has been given. In our considered opinion, in the penalty proceedings, the assessee can raise additional plea supported by evidences. We find that since the assessee was having opening balance of Rs. 2,59,086/- to this extent, the peak credit gets reduced to Rs. 1,15,200/-. On the given facts, we think that the penalty should be levied on this amount. We accordingly direct the A.O. to re-compute the penalty on Rs. 1,15,200/-.
Appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in Open Court on 17 - 11- 2017
Sd/- Sd/- (S. S. GODARA) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER True Copy ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 17 /11/2017 Rajesh
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026