MIHIR H. BILAKHIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(3)(1),

None appeared on behalf of the assessee even though the case was adjourned on the earlier occasion at the request of the assessee. Hence, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte, without the presence of the assessee.

We heard the Ld. DR and perused the record. We notice that the penalty has been levied on the addition of Rs.17,02,748/- relating to the cash deposit found in the bank account of the assessee. We notice that the assessee did not explain the sources for the bank deposits and hence he did not succeed in the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) in the quantum assessment proceedings. These facts have been noted by the Ld. CIT(A), and accordingly he took the view that the assessee has concealed particulars of income, and accordingly confirmed the penalty order.

Since the assessee has failed to explain the sources for making the bank deposits, and since the assessee has failed to furnish any explanations during the penalty proceedings also, we are of the view that the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, we confirm the order of Ld. CIT(A).

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