R.Madanagopal, Coimbatore V. ITO, Coimbatore

ITA 1098/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5907 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M PALANICHAMY
• Assessee Lawyers: A S SRIRAMAN
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . , , BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNT ANT MEMBER I.T.A.NO S . 1 098 & 1099 /MDS/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 SHRI R. MADANAGOPAL, C/O G.V. JHABAKH, F.C.A., 157, P.M. SWAMY COLONY, 5 TH STREET, COIMBATORE. [PAN: A GNPR7928P ] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER N.C. WARD 2(5), C OIMBATORE . ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.S. SRIRAMAN , A DVOCATE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M. PALANICHAMY , J CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 0 6 . 1 0 .201 7 / DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT : 31 . 10 .201 7 / O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER : BOTH THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDER S OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS ) 2 , C OIMBATORE BOTH DATED 30 .0 3 .2017 RE LEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 PASSED AGAINST QUANTUM ADDITION AS WELL AS LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [ ACT IN SHORT]. IN THE APPEAL AGAINST QUANTUM ADDITION, BESIDES CHALLENGING CONFIRMATION OF VARIOUS ADDI TIONS, THE ASSESSEE ALSO CHALLENGED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DENYING OPPORTUNITY TO THE I.T.A. NO S . 1098 & 1099 /M/ 17 2 AR OF THE ASSESSEE TO REPRESENT ASSESSEE S CASE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CHALLENGED IN APPEAL, THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AGAINST THE QUAN TUM ADDITION. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND PROPRIETOR OF M/S. RMG ENTERPRISES DEALING IN WHOLESALE AND RETAIL OF PLYWOOD. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN ON 03.10.2011 DECLARING TAXABLE INCOME OF .7,37,580/ - ALONG WITH AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF .1,75,600/ - . THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT DATED 01.08.2012 WAS ISSU ED. DESPITE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES WERE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO APPEAR FOR HEARING, BUT INFORMED THAT THE ASSESSMENT WOULD BE FINALIZED BASED ON THE AIR INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS PER THE AIR INFORMATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH DEPOSITS IN HIS SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED IN ICICI BANK, SAIBABA COLONY BRANCH, COIMBATORE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2010 - 11 OF .41,03,845/ - AND MADE CASH DEPOSITS IN HIS CURRENT ACCOUNT WITH KARNATAKA BANK, R.S. PURAM BRANCH, COIMBATORE FOR .37,90,000/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUESTED BOTH THE BANKS TO FURNISH COPY OF THE ASSESSEE S BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH THEM. THOUGH THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND EXPLAINED THAT THE BANK DEPOSITS MADE IN KARNATAKA BANK FOR .37,90,000/ - WERE TO BOOST I.T.A. NO S . 1098 & 1099 /M/ 17 3 UP THE TARGET OF THE BANK AS PER THEIR REQUEST AND THE SAID AMOUNT HAS BEEN RETURNED TO THE ASSESSEE S ACC OUNT LATER ON. HOWEVER, SINCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE OF CERTIFICATE FROM THE BANK, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY SOURCE OF INCOME FOR THE CASH DEPO SITS MADE OF .41,03,845/ - WITH ICICI BANK. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME AND ADDED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. FURTHER, WITH REGARD TO CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF .1,75,600/ - , THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCE D ANY CHITTA, ADANGAL AND VAO S CERTIFICATE AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. LIKEWISE, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED CHAPTER VIA DEDUCTION OF .1,10,000/ - , BUT NO PROOF WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY ASSESSING TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT .88,51,430/ - . 3. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). AFTER CONSIDERING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS ARGUMENTS OF THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. BY REFERRING TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS INFOR MED BY HIS C.A. SHRI E.R. RAJARAM WILL BE OUT OF COUNTRY AND ADVISED TO MAKE ARRANGEMENT FOR FURTHER APPEARANCE I.T.A. NO S . 1098 & 1099 /M/ 17 4 AND ALSO GIVE NOC. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE OBTAINED POWER OF ATTORNEY DULY STAMPED AND SIGNED ON 17.04.2017 BY THE NEW AR AND FILED THE SAME A ND AWAITING RESPONSE FROM THE LD. CIT(A). HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED ORDERS AGAINST QUANTUM ADDITION AND LEVY OF PENALTY WITHOUT AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE NEWLY APPOINTED AR IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND LAW AND PRAYED THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GIVEN TO THE NEWLY APPOINTED AR. 5. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT , DURING THE ENTIRE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE SAID AR OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI E.R. RAJARAM, C.A. HAS VERY WELL APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), FILED THE DETAILS, WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO ARGUED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WITH REGARD TO ALL THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREAFTER, THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED THE ORDERS AGAINST QUANTUM ADDITION AS WELL AS AGAINST LEVY OF PENALTY MUCH BE FORE THE FILING OF NEW POA OF NEW AR OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS NOT AT ALL WARRANTED IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT PASSED ANY EX - PARTE ORDER AGAINST QUANTUM ADDITION AS WELL AS LEVY OF PENALTY. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATER IALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY DETAILS WITH REGARD TO THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANKS, WITH REGARD TO THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME CLAIMED, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED CHITTA, ADANGAL AND VAO S CERTIFICATE AND MOREOVER, NO PROOF HAS BEEN I.T.A. NO S . 1098 & 1099 /M/ 17 5 PRODUCED FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VIA . THUS, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS. ON APPEAL AGAINST THE ADDITIONS, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI E.R. RAJARAM, C.A . APPEARED AND ARGUED ALL THE GROUNDS AND ALSO MADE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN ELABORATION OF HIS ARGUMENTS WITH REGARD TO THE QUANTUM ADDITIONS. IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER EXPLANATION AND EVIDENCES, WITH REGARD TO BANK DEPOSITS, CASH WITHDRAWALS, ETC. THE LD. C IT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SIMILARLY, WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND DISALLOWANCE OF CHAPTER VIA DEDUCTION ALSO, THE AR HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE EVEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). HENCE, THE LD. CIT(A ) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE AND PASSED THE APPELLATE ORDER ON 30.03.2017. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED EX - PARTE ORDER S AGAINST QUANTUM ADDITIONS AS WELL AS AGAINST LEVY OF PENALTY . IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS FI LED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE WAS INFORMED THAT SHRI E.R. RAJARAM WILL BE OUT OF COUNTRY AND ADVISED TO MAKE ARRANGEMENT FOR FURTHER APPEARANCE AND ALSO GIVE NOC. THE ASSESSEE APPROACHED SHRI G. VIJAYCHAND JH ABAKH, F.C.A. TO REPRESENT THE CASES AND THE NEW A.R. FILED THE COPY OF NOC OF PREVIOUS AR AND ALSO FILED THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DULY STAMPED AND SIGNED ON 17.04.2017 ITSELF FOR I.T.A. NO. 224/2014 - 15 AND 232/2014 - 15 AND AWAITING RESPONSE FROM THE C.I.T. AP PEALS . I.T.A. NO S . 1098 & 1099 /M/ 17 6 FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE NEW POA SIGNED BY THE NEW AR SHRI G. VIJAYCHAND JHABAKH ONLY ON 17.04.2017 , WHEREAS, THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED THE APPELLATE ORDERS AGAINST QUANTUM ADDITION AS WELL AS AGAINST LEVY OF PENALTY ON 30.03.2017. MOREOVER, ON PERUSAL OF THE APPELLATE ORDERS, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT PASSED EX - PARTE ORDERS. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI E.R. RAJARAM, C.A. WAS HEARD AT LENGTH AND THE LD. CIT(A) COULD NOT ACCEPT THE ARGUMENTS OF THE AR IN THE A BSENCE OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO BANK DEPOSITS/WITHDRAWALS. MOREOVER, WITH REGARD TO AGRICULTURAL INCOME, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED CHITTA, ADANGAL AND VAO S CERTIFICATE AND MOREOVER, NO PROOF HAS BEEN PRODUCED FOR CLAIMING DEDUCT ION UNDER CHAPTER VIA. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND PASSED HIS ORDER ON 30.03.2017 MUCH PRIOR TO FILING OF NEW POA OF NEW AR OF THE ASSESSEE ON 17.04.2017 , WHICH IS NOTHING BUT AN AFTERTHO UGHT . UNDER THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE WAS NO NEED FOR THE LD. CIT(A) TO AFFORD AN OPPORTUNITY TO NEWLY APPOINTED AR OF THE ASSESSEE , ONCE THE HEARING OF THE APPEALS HAS BEEN CONCLUDED ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING ON 22.03.2017 WITH THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI E.R. RAJARAM AND SUBSEQUENTLY PASSED THE APPELLATE ORDERS ON 30.03.2017 WITH REGARD TO QUANTUM ADDITIONS AS WELL AS AGAINST LEVY OF PENALTY. THUS, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. I.T.A. NO S . 1098 & 1099 /M/ 17 7 7. ON MERITS, WITH REGARD TO THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION MADE TREATING THE CASH DEPOSITS UNDER INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES , WE FIND THAT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN RESPECT OF DEPOSITS MADE WITH KARNATAKA BANK FOR .37,90,000/ - , IT WAS THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THA T THE DEPOSITS WERE MADE TO BOOST UP THE TARGET OF THE BANK AS PER THEIR REQUEST AND THE SAID AMOUNT HAS BEEN RETURNED TO THE ASSESSEE S ACCOUNT LATER ON. SO FAR AS CASH DEPOSITS WITH ICICI BANK OF .41,03,845/ - IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY SOURCE OF INCOME. HOWEVER, BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN A DIFFERENT STAND THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS ARE OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS RECEIVED ON SALE OF STOCKS I.E., PLYWOOD. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IMMEDIATELY AFTER DEPOSITING THE CASH, AMOUNTS WERE PAID IN CHEQUE TO CREDITORS I.E., THE SUPPLIERS. IF IT IS SO, WHAT PREVENTED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, INVOICES/VOUCHERS, ETC. EITHER BEFO RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) OR EVEN BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE DETAILS OF PURCHASES, INVOICES OR STOCK REGISTER, ETC. FOR CLAIMING THE CASH DEPOSITS AS SALE PROCEEDS. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO E XPLAIN TO THE QUERIES AS TO WHETHER THE PAYMENTS ARE AGAINST SUPPLIES, WHETHER ASSESSEE S CASH SALES WERE OUT OF THOSE SUPPLIES AND CASH BALANCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO EXPLAIN DEPOSITS, THE ONUS LIES ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROPERLY EXPLAIN WITH EVIDENCES. IN THE AB SENCE OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE ON CASH DEPOSITS I.T.A. NO S . 1098 & 1099 /M/ 17 8 AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY, WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND DISALLOWA NCE OF CHAPTER VIA DEDUCTION, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) OR EVEN BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW OTHER THAN CONFIRMING THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THUS, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AR E DISMISSED. 8. WITH REGARD TO LEVY OF PENALTY, DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE, THERE WAS NO REPRESENTATION FROM ASSESSEE S SIDE DURING THE COURSE OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. TAKING THE NON - PRODUCTION OF PROOF FOR THE SOURCE OF INCOME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREA TED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS CONCEALED INCOME AND LEVIED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED AND HELD AS UNDER: 4.0 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, GROUNDS AND WRITTEN SUBMISS IONS OF THE AR. THE BELATED APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN SIMULTANEOUSLY HEARD AND THE SAME HAS BEEN DISMISSED IN MY APPELLATE ORDER PASSED TODAY IN ITA NO.224/14 - 15. THE ADDITIONS AND DISALLOWANCES HAVE BEEN UPHELD FOR THE DETAILED REASONS MENTIONED THEREIN. 4.1 THE APPELLANT TOOK A PLEA IN THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT HE ENGAGED SHRI S MAHESH WHO CLAIMED TO BE A CA FOR REPRESENTING HIS CASE BEFORE THE AO AND ALL THE NOTICES WERE HANDED OVER TO HIM. SHRI M AHESH INFORMED THAT HE WOULD BE ATTENDING THE HEARING AND DO THE NEEDFUL AND KEPT HIM TOTALLY IN DARK ABOUT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS NOT SERVED UPON HIM BUT WAS RECEIVED BY SHRI MAHESH AS AR AND NEVER INFORMED HIM ABOUT THE HUGE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND TAX LIABILITY. HE CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ONLY ON 12.09.2014 WHEN THE AO TELEPHONED ABOUT THE NON - PAYMENT OF TAX. LATER HE REALIZED THAT I.T.A. NO S . 1098 & 1099 /M/ 17 9 SHRI MAHESH WAS NOT A CA AND ONLY AFTER SUMMONING HIM, HE H ANDED OVER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 26.09.2014. WHEN AO WAS ASKED TO VERIFY THESE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT, HE REPLIED THROUGH LETTER DATED 21.02.2017 STATING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE WERE RECEIVED BY SHRI S MAHESH ON 31.03.2014 IN TH E CAPACITY OF AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AS HE HAD ALREADY FILED HIS POWER TO REPRESENT THIS CASE DURING THE HEARINGS CONDUCTED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AO FURTHER STATED THAT OTHER SHOW CAUSE NOTICES WERE DULY SERVED ON THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS SHRI MAHESH. A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S. 221(1) DATED 14.08.2014 ISSUED FOR PAYMENT OF TAX DEMAND WAS ALSO SENT BY POST BUT WAS RETURNED AS 'NOT CLAIMED'. A PENALTY HEARING NOTICE WAS ALSO ISSUED ON 16.09.2014 BUT THAT ALSO WAS RETURNED AS UNCLAIMED. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT MISERABLY FAILED TO AVAIL THE OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN BY THE AO TO EXPLAIN THE CASH DEPOSITS EITHER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. SIMILARLY, NO EVIDENCES WHATSOEVER WERE PRODUCED WITH REGARD TO AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER CHAPTER VIA. THE APPELLANT STATED THAT HE CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ONLY ON 12.09.2014 WHEN THE AO TELEPHONED ABOUT THE NON - PAYMENT OF TAX. IT WAS AFTER THIS DATE, THE AO ISSUED ANOTHER LETT ER REMINDING THE APPELLANT ABOUT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. BUT THAT LETTER SENT BY POST WAS NOT CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. PRIOR TO THAT, NOTICE U/S.221(1) WAS ALSO NOT CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM O F THE VIEW THAT THE AO HAS RIGHTLY IMPOSED THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) AND CONFIRM THE SAME. THE GROUNDS ARE THEREFORE REJECTED. 9. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. BY REFERRING TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE LD. COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT LEVY OF HUGE PENALTY OF .25,27,450/ - IS UNWARRANTED, SINCE, THE ASSESSEE WAS KEPT IN DARK ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENTS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND PRAYED THAT THE PENALTY LEVIED MAY BE DELETED. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. I.T.A. NO S . 1098 & 1099 /M/ 17 10 10. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A FTER PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BY SERVING NOTICE OF HEARING UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT TO THE AR OF THE AS SESSEE. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED VARIOUS NOTICES TO THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WERE NOT CLAIMED BY HIM, AS EXTRACTED IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE AT PARA 8. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN AMPLE OPPORTUNI TIES BOTH DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS PENALTY PROCEEDINGS TO FILE DETAILS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY DETAILS WITH REGARD TO THE SOURCE OF INCOME FOR THE CASH DEPOSITS, NO DETAIL FOR AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND CHAPTER VI A DEDUCTION CLAIMED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT , WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) O N APPEAL . 11. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE FILE D THE RETURN OF INCOME BY ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF .7,37,583/ - , WHICH INCLUDE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF .1,75,600/ - . IN THE ABSENCE OF VALID AND SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCES ON THE BANK DEPOSITS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CONFIRMED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ADMITTED ANY BANK DEPOSITS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, WHICH IS NOTHING BUT CLEAR CASE OR CONCEALMENT AND FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. T HE EXPLANATION 1 TO S ECTION 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT RAISES A PRESUMPTION OF CONCEALMENT, WHEN A DI FFERENCE IS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BETWEEN THE REPORTED AND I.T.A. NO S . 1098 & 1099 /M/ 17 11 ASSESSED INCOME. THE BURDEN IS THEN ON THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW OTHERWISE, BY COGENT AND RELIABLE EVIDENCE . IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY COGENT EVIDENCES FOR HIS CLAIMS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED THE INITIAL ONUS CAST UPON HIM, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS VERY MUCH WARRANTED. THUS, THE G ROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . 12. IN THE RE SULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 31 ST OCTOBER , 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - ( S. JAYARAMAN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 31 . 1 0 .201 7 VM/ - / COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT , 2. / RESPONDENT , 3. ( ) / CIT(A) , 4. / CIT , 5. / DR & 6. / GF.