JALAJ J SAHAI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.18,96,600/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not accepting that appellant has voluntarily disclosed the income at the time of assessment proceedings. Assessment Year: 2008-09

On the facts and circumstances of the case, ld CIT(A) failed to accept the income declared by the appellant, which is without detection by the department and the tax was also paid thereon, accordingly, appellant cannot be held guilty of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, Id CIT(A) failed appreciate the bonafide mistake and the AO levied the penalty only on the disclosure made by the appellant only. In brief the assessee has asserted that order of learned CIT(A) confirming the penalty of Rs.18,96,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961( in short “the Act”) is wrong and against the law and facts, therefore, the said order is liable to be set aside.

We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned representative of the parties and have gone through the case files carefully. The basis of levy the penalty is the assessment order dated 28.12.2010 passed by the Assessing Officer relevant to assessment year 2008-09. While passing the said order the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) was issued which was also received by the assessee. Subsequently, notice u/s. 142(1) was issued. Thereafter, it was found that the assessee was having the fixed deposits to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- in IDBI Bank which was confirmed by the bank vide letter dated 09.12.2010. It was also found that the assessee was having another fixed deposits of Rs. 10,00,000/- in Bank of Baroda which was also confirmed by the bank vide letter dated 08.12.2010. The assessee did not disclose the source and also the said amount was not disclosed in the returns. Therefore, the same was added to the tax. It was also found that the assessee did not disclosed the Brokerage Income of Rs.30,56,331/- and Interest Income of Rs.5,08,706/- and further interest of Rs.14,761. Therefore, a sum of Rs.55,79,798/- was added to the assessee’s total income which was not disclosed earlier and added to the income of the assessee. Thereafter, the penalty order dated 28.06.2011 was passed for the levying the penalty to the 2 Assessment Year: 2008-09 tune of Rs.18,96,600/-. Subsequently, the appeal was preferred before the learned CIT(A) who dismiss the appeal of assessee. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal filed before Tribunal

We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned representative of the parties. The learned representative of the assessee has argued that the assessee inadvertently failed to disclosed the amount lies with the IDBI as well as lies with the Bank of Baroda and other income has voluntarily disclosed therefore no penalty is leviable in view of the law settled in case cited as (2009) 119 ITD 97 titled as Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Prem Chand Garg and order dated 02.09.2015 passed by ITAT, Mumbai bench in ITA No. 6222&6223/M/13 titled as Hafeez S. Contractor. Learned Departmental Representative strongly relied upon the order in question. The above orders perused but the facts of the present case are not identical to the above mentioned cases. In the instant case the appellant nowhere, mentioned an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- deposited with the IDBI Bank and Rs.10,00,000/- deposited with Bank of Baroda and the banks confirmed the said deposits by their letters dated 09.12.2010 and 10.12.2010 respectively and the said transactions had not been reflected in the return by the assessee. Moreover, brokerage income to the tune of Rs.30,56,331/- and interest income to the tune of Rs.5,08,706/- and interest income to the tune of Rs.14,761/- have not been reflected in his Income Tax Returns. The assessee did not disclosed his income to the tune of Rs.55,79,798/-. Inadvertently and mistake are not the plausible explanation. At the time of scrutiny it was found that certain amount has not been showed in the return. There is no plausible explanation on record as to why these amounts have not shown in the returns of the relevant assessment years.

It is clear that the assessee has concealed particulars of his income and also furnishes the inaccurate particulars in his return. Therefore, in the said

In the result, the present appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed.

""यथ" / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु"त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 4. आयकर आयु"त / CIT

"वभागीय ""त"न"ध, आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड" फाईल / Guard file.