S S MOHAMED IBRAHIM, CHENNAI V. ACIT COMPANY CIRCLE 1 (2), CHENNAI

ITA 1224/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6142 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 10-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: N QUADIR HOSEYN
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Business income; Salary income; Peak credit; Additional evidence; Non compliance; Revised return
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : CHENNAI [BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER ] . I.T.A. NOS. 1224 & 1344/CHNY/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-2010. S S MOHAMED IBRAHIM, OLD NO.7, NEW NO.19, AKBARABAD STREET, KODAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI 600 024. VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI [PAN AAAPI 7526B ] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI.N. QUADIR HOSEYN, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. AR.V. SREENIVASAN, JCIT. / DATE OF HEARING : 22 - 1 - 20 19 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24 - 1 - 201 9 / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE ARE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST ORDERS DATED 19.02.2018 AND 30.03.2018 OF LD. COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A)-1, CHENNAI. 2. FIRST IS AN APPEAL MADE AGAINST ADDITION/DISALLOWAN CES MADE FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, WHEREAS SECOND IS AN APPEAL ITA NO. 1224 & 1344/2018 :- 2 -: AGAINST LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1) (C) OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) FOR THE SAME YEAR. 3. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE HAD FILED HIS RETUR N FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR DECLARING INCOME OF RS.11, 14,850/- COMPRISING SALARY OF RS.2,70,000/- AND HOUSE PROPER TY INCOME OF RS.8,44,850/-. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE C OURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, EXAMINED THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASS ESSEE AND FOUND THAT THERE WERE TWO BANK ACCOUNTS, ONE WITH M/S. BA NK OF INDIA AND OTHER WITH CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, WHICH CARRIED FOL LOWING CASH/ CLEARING CREDITS. (A) CASH CREDITS IN A/C NO.8012101 10000477 WITH BANK OF INDIA: RS.22,47,000 (B) CLEARING CREDITS IN A/C NO.801210110000477 WITH BANK OF INDIA; RS.66,74,500 (C) CASH CREDITS IN A/C NO.1010256476 WITH CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA: RS. 8,47,295 (D) CLEARING CREDITS IN A/C NO.1010256476 WITH CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA: RS. 4,60,717 ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE CREDITS. EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE CREDITS WERE OUT OF DR AWINGS FROM ONE M/S. BABA FOUNDATIONS P. LTD WHERE HE WAS A MANAGI NG DIRECTOR. LD. AO HOWEVER DID NOT ACCEPT THE SAID EXPLANATION. AC CORDING TO HIM, THE CREDITS LISTED IN THE TABLE ABOVE ALREADY EXCLU DED CHEQUES RECEIVED ITA NO. 1224 & 1344/2018 :- 3 -: FROM M/S. BABA FOUNDATIONS P. LTD. AS PER THE LD. AO ACCOUNT COPIES OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF M/S. BABA FOUNDATIO NS P. LTD WERE VERIFIED AND SUCH EXCLUSIONS CORRECTLY DONE BY HIM . HE HELD THAT THE CREDITS AGGREGATING RS.1,02,29,512/- WAS UNEXPLAINE D AND AN ADDITION WAS MADE U/S.69 OF THE ACT. 4. APART FROM THE ABOVE, LD. AO ON VERIFICATION OF THE RUNNING ACCOUNT ASSESSEE HAD IN M/S. BABA FOUNDATIONS P. LT D, FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD REPAID RS.34,10,000/- AGAINST LOANS AG GREGATING TO RS.40,25,000/- RECEIVED FROM M/S. BABA FOUNDATIONS P. LTD. ACCORDING TO THE LD. AO THERE WAS NO EXPLANATION FOR THE SOUR CE FOR MAKING THE REPAYMENTS. AN ADDITION OF RS.34,10,000/- WAS MADE U/S.69 OF THE ACT ALSO. 5. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE MOVED IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT( A). LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED SUCH APPEAL FOR A REASON THAT ASSE SSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE NECESSARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT ITS CONTENTIO NS. THEREUPON ASSESSEE MOVED THIS TRIBUNAL AND THIS TRIBUNAL THR OUGH ITS ORDER IN ITA 968/MDS/2014, DATED 4.02.2015 REMITTED THE ISS UES BACK TO THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS. ADMITTEDLY, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS PASSED IMPUGNED ORDER ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WITHOUT HEARING THE ASSESSEE. WE NOTICED THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS GI VEN MORE THAN ONE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH MAT ERIALS CALLED ITA NO. 1224 & 1344/2018 :- 4 -: FOR BY HIM. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNIS H THE SAME AND HENCE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A ) WAS CONSTRAINED TO PASS ORDER. AT THE SAME TIME, WE FI ND SOME MERIT IN THE PLEA OF THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESE NTATIVE. HENCE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE ARE INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE PLEA OF THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBJE CT TO PAYMENT OF COST. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE ASSESS EE TO PAY THE COST OF 5,000/- (RUPEES FIVE THOUSAND ONLY) TO THE CREDIT OF INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT ON OR BEFORE 16 TH FEBRUARY, 2015. SUBJECT TO THE PAYMENT OF ABOVE SAID AMOUNT, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) AND RESTORE ALL THE MATERIAL TO HIS FILE WITH A DIR ECTION TO EXAMINE THEM AFRESH AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNI TY OF HEARING BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO DIREC T THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH ALL THE DETAILS THAT MAY BE CAL LED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) WITHOUT FAIL . 6. ACCORDINGLY, LD.CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE MATTER AFRESH . SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) IN THE FRESH PROCEEDINGS WERE THAT HE HAD EARNED INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS AND THE CREDITS APPEARING IN THE BANK ACCO UNT REPRESENTED RECEIPTS FROM SUCH BUSINESS. ASSESSEE ALSO ARGUED BEFORE LD. CIT(A) THAT A REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME, ADMITTING I NCOME OF RS.1,24,400/- FOR BUSINESS, WAS FILED BEFORE LD. A O DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS. AS PER THE ASSESSEE SUCH INCOME WAS COMPUTED AT 8% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS IN CONTRACT AC TIVITY. LD. CIT(A) SOUGHT A REMAND REPORT FROM THE LD. AO. LD. AO AND IN THE REMAND REPORT, LD. AO STATED AS UNDER:- A) THE REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME FLIED ON 29.12 .2011 WAS NOT CONSIDERED AS IT WAS COMPUTATION U/S.44AD THAT TOO FOR BUSINESS INCOME WHICH WAS NOT AT ALL ORIGINALLY SHOWN IN RET URN FLED ON 21.05.2010. THE SAME WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(L) ON 0 9.11.2011. HAD THERE BEEN NO SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS, NO REVISED STAT EMENTS OF INCOME ITA NO. 1224 & 1344/2018 :- 5 -: WERE TO HAVE FILED. THIS REVISED STATEMENT IS AFTER THOUGHT. THE ISSUE, TO BE CONSIDERED HERE, IS EXPLAINED CREDITS IN BANK S, REPAYMENT OF LOANS WITHOUT EXPLAINING THE SOURCE FOR REPAYMENT I N THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS NOT IGNO RANCE ON THE PART OF AO TO CONSIDER REVISED MEMO BUT NON COMPLIANCE ON T HE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF CLAIM D URING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE WAS BAS ED TO DO SO. B) CASH CREDITS RS. 30,94,295/- PEAK CREDIT HAS BEE N WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.4,00,000/- ON 22.04.2008. IT IS REITERATED THAT PEAK CREDIT HAS TO BE CALCULATED BY THE AO, IF HE T HINKS SO, AND NOT BY THE ASSESSEE. INSTEAD OF EXPLAINING THE SOURCES FOR THIS ENTIRE RS.30,94,295/-, ASSESSEE HAS RESORTED TO THE AID OF PEAK CREDIT. IT IS STATED IN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED CASH TO TUNE OF RS.33.50 LAKHS FROM M/S.BABA FOUNDATION. HE RE THE QUESTION IS ON PROVING THE SOURCE OF REPAYMENT TO M/S BAA FO UNDATIONS. EVEN TODAY, THE SOURCES HAVE NOT BEEN EXPLAINED. THIS IS NOT TO BE ALLOWED AS PER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND THEREFORE THE O FFER OF RS. 4,00,000/- IS NOT TO BE ACCEPTED. 7. AFTER PERUSING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND REMAND REPORT GIVEN BY LD. AO, LD. CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE CLA IM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CREDITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WERE ON ACCOUN T OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY HIM. AS PER TH E LD. CI(A) THE CLEARING ENTRIES APPEARING IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WERE SUB CONTRACT PAYMENTS TO ONE SHRI. MANAVALAN. THIS, AS PER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE TAX RETURN AND BALANCE SHEE T FILED BY SHRI. MANAVALAN. ACCORDING TO THE LD. CIT(A) EXPLANATION OF THE ASSEESSEE THAT THE CREDITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WHERE FROM ITS CONTRACT BUSINESS WAS ACCEPTABLE. HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO HIM, GROSS RECEIPTS FROM SUCH CONTRACT BUSINESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPLYING 8% RA TE COULD NOT BE ITA NO. 1224 & 1344/2018 :- 6 -: LIMITED TO CLEARING CREDITS ALONE. ACCORDING TO HI M, THE TOTAL RECEIPTS FROM THE CIVIL CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS WERE AS UNDER: - CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT RS,30,94,295 CLEARING DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT RS.71,35,217 AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM BABA FOUNDATION LTD. RS .4 0,25,000 RS.142,54,512 LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. AO ON UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS AND UNEXPLAINED REPAYMENT OF LOAN AN D INSTEAD MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.11,40,360/- BEING INCOME ESTIMATED AT THE RATE OF 8% ON CIVIL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS.1,42 ,54,512/-. HOWEVER, APART FROM THIS, LD. CIT(A) ALSO ARRIVED AT A FIN DING THAT ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE INVESTED A SUM OF RS.4,00,000/- AS INIT IAL INVESTMENT IN ITS BUSINESS AND SUM OF RS.28,00,000/- FOR FUNDING ITS WORKING CAPITAL REPAYMENT. FOR ESTIMATING THE WORKING CAPITAL REQU IRED LD. CIT(A) RELIED ON THE ACCOUNTS OF M/S. BABA FOUNDATIONS P. LTD, WHICH REFLECTED WORKING CAPITAL OF 23% OF THE TURNOVER. AFTER EXCLUDING RS.4,00,000/- CONSIDERED FOR ADDITION AS INITIAL I NVESTMENT IN AN BUSINESS, AN ADDITION OF RS.24,00,000/- WAS MADE AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN WORKING CAPITAL. AGGREGATE TOTAL INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE AS COMPUTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) READ AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 1224 & 1344/2018 :- 7 -: A) INCOME FROM CIVIL CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS RS . 11,40,360 @ 8%OF TOTAL RECEIPTS OF RS.1,42,54,512/- B) UNEXPLAINED CASH INVESTMENT IN BUSINESS RS. 4,00,000 (BEING PEAK INVESTMENT ADMITTED BY APPELLANT) C) UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN WORKING CAPITAL (RS.28 LAKHS LESS CASH INVESTMENT OF RS.4 LAKHS) RS.24,00,000 ------------------- TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME FROM CIVIL CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS RS. 39, 40,360___ 8. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, LD. CIT(A) ALSO PROCE EDED TO LEVY PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON THE SUM OF RS.39,40,360/- WHICH HE CONSIDERED TO BE CONCEALED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. NOW BEFORE US, ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL AGAINST THE QUANTUM ADDITIONS HAS RAISED FIVE GROUNDS. LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET SUBMITTED THAT HE WAS NOT PRESSING GROU ND NO.1. 10. VIDE ITS GROUND 2, ASSESSEE ASSAILS THE ADDITION O F RS.24,00,000/- MADE TOWARDS WORKING CAPITAL. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. REASON WHY THE ADDITION OF RS.24,00,000/- WAS MADE BY THE LD. CI T(A) APPEARS AT PARA 18 OF HIS ORDER WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: - 18. FURTHER, IN A CIVIL CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS MINI MUM WORKING CAPITAL IS REQUIRED TO CARRY ON THE BUSINESS. THE A PPELLANT HAS NOT MAINTAINED ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IN THE CASE O F BABA ITA NO. 1224 & 1344/2018 :- 8 -: FOUNDATION LTD. THE WORKING CAPITAL IS 23% OF THE T URNOVER, AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT. TAKING THE SAME RATIO, THE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN WORKING C APITAL BY THE APPELLANT IS ESTIMATED AT RS 28 IAKHS (20% OF R S 142,54,512) WHICH INCLUDES CASH OF RS.4 LAKHS AND O THER NET RECEIVABLES OF RS.24 LAKHS. THUS, THE APPELLANTS UN DISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN CIVIL CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS DISCLOSED FOR THE FIRST TIME IS DETERMINED AT RS.28 LAKHS. WE FIND THAT ASSEESSEE IS NOT IN APPEAL AGAINST ES TIMATION OF 8% ON ITS RECEIPTS OF RS.1,42,54,512/-, AS INCOME FROM CIVIL CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS. ONCE AN ADDITION ON ESTIMATE BASIS IS M ADE, IN OUR OPINION A FURTHER ESTIMATE FOR INVESTMENTS IN WORK ING CAPITAL WILL BE SUPERFLUOUS. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW TH AT ASSESSEE HAD ANY WORKING CAPITAL OR WORK IN PROGRESS. ESTIMATION OF RS.24,00,000/- , AS NET RECEIVABLES OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PURELY AN AS SUMPTION. WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN DELETING THIS ADDITION. GROUN D NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 12. GROUND NO.3 IS AGAINST INITIATING LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1) (C) OF THE ACT, WHICH IS CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE, N EEDING NO SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. 13. VIDE ITS GROUND 4, ASSESSEE ASSAILS THE ADDITION OF RS.4,00,000/- CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN BUSINESS. THROUGH ITS GROUND NO.5, WHICH IS RELATED TO THIS I SSUE, ASSESSEE SEEKS TELESCOPING OF SUCH INVESTMENT AGAINST THE INCOME ESTIMATED AT 8% ON CONTRACT RECEIPTS. ITA NO. 1224 & 1344/2018 :- 9 -: 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS CAREFULLY. P ARA 17 OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER :- WHILE EXPLAINING THE SOURCE FOR THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT THE APPELLANT HAS CALCULATED A PEAK INVESTM ENT OF RS.4 LAKH, WHICH HE HAS ADMITTED S UNDISCLOSED INCOME. T HIS REPRESENTS THE UNDISCLOSED CASH COMPONENT INVESTED IN THE BUSINESS, WHICH WHEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT EXPLAINS AL L THE REMAINING CASH TRANSACTIONS. THIS IS HENCE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH INVESTED IN BUSINESS. 15. IT IS CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE ITSELF HAD ADMITTED A S UM OF RS.4,00,000/- AS PEAK INVESTMENT IN BANK ACCOUNT WH ICH WAS NOT DISCLOSED. HAVING DONE SO, ASSESSEE CANNOT TURN ARO UND AND SAY THAT SUCH ADDITION OUGHT NOT HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE LD. C IT(A). ASSESSEE CANNOT PLEAD FOR TELESCOPING OF ADMITTED INCOME WIT H WHAT IS FOUND BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO BE UNDISCLOSED INCOME. WE THUS DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. C IT(A). GROUNDS 4 AND 5 OF THE ASSESSEE STAND DISMISSED. 16. NOW WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1) (C) OF THE ACT. ITS PLEA IS THAT THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT, SINCE THE INCOME WAS ARRIVED AT ESTIM ATED BASIS. 17. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS CAREFULLY. IT IS TRUE THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ARRIVED ON AN ESTIM ATED BASIS. HOWEVER, ASSESSEE IN ITS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME HAD SHOWN ONLY INCOME FROM SALARY AND INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY A ND NEVER ITA NO. 1224 & 1344/2018 :- 10 - : REVEALED THAT IT WAS DOING ANY BUSINESS, MUCH LESS A CIVIL CONTRACT BUSINESS. IT ALSO DID NOT SHOW ANY INCOME FROM SUCH BUSINESS. IT WAS ONLY WHEN THE LD. AO BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE THE CREDITS IN ITS BANK ACCOUNTS, ASSESSEE CAME UP WITH THE IDEA OF A CIVIL CONTRACT BUSINESS. EVEN THIS EXPLANATION WAS BROU GHT UP BY THE ASSESSEE, FIRST TIME BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND NEVER M ADE BEFORE THE LD. AO. IN THE FIRST ROUND OF PROCEEDINGS, CLAIM OF T HE ASSESSEE WAS THAT CASH CREDITS INCLUDED INCOME DISCLOSED ON ACCOUNT O F SALARY AND HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME. IT IS TRUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED REVISED MEMO SHOWING INCOME OF RS.1,24,400/- FROM CIVIL CONTRAC T BUSINESS DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT BEFORE LD. AO. HOWEV ER, LD. AO IN THE REMAND REPORT CLEARLY STATED THAT SUCH REVISED MEM O WAS FILED PURSUANT TO SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS UNDERTAKEN AND WHE N ASSESSEE WAS PUT ON NOTICE REGARDING THE CREDITS APPEARING IN HI S BANK ACCOUNTS. QUESTION OF CONCEALMENT AND FURNISHING OF INACCURAT E PARTICULARS HAS TO BE ANSWERED WITH REFERENCE TO THE ORIGINAL RETUR N FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, AND NOT BASED SUBSEQUENT COMPUTATIONS OR REVISED RETURN FILED WHEN ASSESSEE BECAME AWARE THAT ASSESSING OFF ICER WAS HAVING INFORMATION ON INCOME NOT DISCLOSED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURNS. THUS, IN OUR OPINION THERE WAS CLEAR FURNISHING OF INACCURA TE PARTICULARS AS WELL AS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. EVEN IN THE REVISED COMPU TATION FILED, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESS EE HAD ADMITTED ITA NO. 1224 & 1344/2018 :- 11 - : INCOME OF ONLY RS.1,24,400/- THAT TOO, ON ESTIMATE BASIS. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE OPINION THAT LOWER AUTHORITIES WER E JUSTIFIED IN LEVYING PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT. NEVER THELESS, SINCE WE HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.24,00,000/- CONSID ERED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN WORKING CAPITAL, THE PENA LTY LEVIED ALSO REQUIRES TO BE REDUCED PROPORTIONATELY. LD. AO SHA LL REWORK THE PENALTY CONSIDERING THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AS RS.15 ,40,360/-. ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 18. . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PART LY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JA NUARY, 2019, AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / CHENNAI / DATED:24 TH JANUARY, 2019. KV / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 4. / CIT 2. / RESPONDENT 5. / DR 3. ( ) / CIT(A) 6. / GF