SMT. ARCHANA GUPTA,MEERUT vs. ITO, MEERUT

The relevant facts of the case are that the assessee in the year under consideration was required to explain the credit of Rs.4,50,000/- in her bank account. In the explanation offered, the assessee claimed that it was a loan advanced by Smt. Mani Jain. Addition of the said amount was accepted by the assessee stating that despite her best efforts she could not contact the said lady and also could not file supporting documents. The addition it was stated was accepted in order to avoid litigation. 2.1. The assessee was further required to explain her claim of having sold gold ring amounting to Rs.25,000/- and silver utensils of Rs.18,000/-. Since the relevant bills and receipts were claimed to be misplaced during shifting of residence accordingly for want of documentary evidence it was also stated that the amount is offered for taxation.

Accordingly in view of the additions made, penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271(1)(c) and considering the submissions of the assessee, penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- was imposed.

Aggrieved by this, the assessee came in appeal before the CIT(A wherein the submissions advanced in the penalty proceedings were reiterated on behalf of the assessee. However, not convinced with the same the penalty order was upheld.

Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

The Ld. AR inviting attention to the impugned order submitted that the CIT(A) has based his finding on the reason that the additions have been accepted by the assessee. Assailing the stand it was submitted that the arguments of the assessee that the loan to Smt. Mani Jain was returned back by way of cheque No.567889 dated 17.08.2008 supported by a copy of bank statement etc. made by the assessee before the AO in response to the show cause notice dated 04.04.2012, it was submitted has neither been considered by the AO nor by the CIT(A). The circumstances it was canvassed the occasion to stay in loud or know the whereabouts of the said lady was not necessary. Copy of the relevant bank account demonstrating that an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- was credited on 15.10.2008 and 17.11.2008 has not been considered. Accordingly it was his prayer that in the facts of the present case the assessee has not been met with justice and infact injustice has occurred not only on the part of the AO but also the CIT(A). Similar was the position it was submitted qua the remaining issues also. It was concluded that even the counsel representing the assessee no doubt did not care to address the facts that the other supporting evidences in support of the sale of gold ring and silver utensils and personal expenses could have been obtained. Accordingly in the interests of justice, it was his prayer that the issue may be restored to the AO. 6.1. Ld. Sr. DR, Mr. P.Dam Kanunjna addressing the Paper Book filed including the letter addressed to the AO supported by the copy of bank account evidencing the repayment to Smt. Mani Jain of Rs.4,50,000/- could not rebut the argument that these facts have been considered in the order of the tax authorities. Accordingly he had no objection if the issue is restored back to the AO.