Ajit Chintaman Karve, Pune V. Income-tax Officer, Pune

ITA 1286/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5442 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 10 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 21-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 271D

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA ROAO, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM ITA No.1286/PUN/2017 Assessment Year : 2000-01 Ajit C. Karve, 1076/3 Ajit Villa, Vidya Vihar Colony, Shivajinagar PUNE – 411 016 PAN : AACFK1449H .......Appellant V/s. The I.T.O. Ward 3(2), Pune ......Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri M. Jasnani Date of Hearing : 25.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 ORDER PER SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM: This is an appeal filed by the Assessee directed against the order of the CIT(A) Pune-8, Pune, dated 2-2-2017 for A.Y. 2000-01 confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act). The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal. “1. The ld. CIT(A) has misinterpreted the data and also the previous order of Hon’ble ITAT. 2. The appellant may kindly granted proper opportunity in support of its claim. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or substitute any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and carries on the proprietary concern of M/s. Karve Constructions. He is engaged in the business of promoters and builders. During the course of search and seizure operations carried out in the case of one Shri Shriram H. Soni on 29- 7-2003, certain incriminating documents stated to have been found and seized relating to advance of cash loans to the appellant herein. Based on this information, the A.O initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271D of the Act for the violation of provisions of Sec. 269SS of the Act. The A.O referred the matter to 2 ITA No. 1286/PUN/2017 Ajit C. Karve A.Y. 2000-01 the Addl. CIT for the purpose of levy of penalty. After giving an opportunity of hearing, he imposed a penalty vide order dated 26-6-2008 of Rs. 33,00,000/- u/s 271D of the Act. The appellant filed an appeal before the CIT(A), who confirmed the levy of penalty. On further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal vide its order dated 30-1-2015 while upholding the levy of penalty restored the matter to the file of the A.O to examine the contents of the appellant that the loans received is only Rs. 10,00,000/- as against Rs. 33,00,000/- alleged to have been received by the appellant. 3. Pursuant to the directions of the Tribunal, the Addl. CIT after calling for the remand report from the A.O had reiterated that the appellant had received cash loan of Rs. 33,00,000/- and accordingly levied the penalty of Rs. 33,00,000/- vide order dated 30-9-2015. Being aggrieved by the above order, the appellant has preferred the appeal before the CIT(A) who vide impugned order after duly analyzing the seized material had concluded that the appellant has actually received cash loan of Rs. 33,00,000/- vide paras 15 and 16 of his order. Being aggrieved by this order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in present appeal before us. 4. In the present appeal, despite several notices issued to the appellant, the appellant has not caused any appearance without any reasonable cause. In the circumstances, we proceed to dispose of this matter on merits after hearing the ld. Sr. D.R. 5. We have carefully gone through the findings given by the CIT(A) vide para 15 and 16 of the impugned order. The findings of the CIT(A) are based on the due analyses of the contents of the seized material on record. There is no material on record by the appellant controverting the findings of the CIT(A). We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) and confirm the order of the CIT(A). 3 ITA No. 1286/PUN/2017 Ajit C. Karve A.Y. 2000-01 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 31 st day of March, 2022. Sd/- s/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (SONJOY SARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune; Dated : 31 st March, 2022. Ankam Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The DRP-3,Mumbai. 4. The Pr. CIT(IT & TP), Pune. 5. DR, ITAT, “C” Bench, Pune. 6. Guard File. BY ORDER, Senior Private Secretary ITAT, Pune. //// TRUE COPY //// 4 ITA No. 1286/PUN/2017 Ajit C. Karve A.Y. 2000-01 Date 1 Draft dictated on 29-03-2022 Sr.PS 2 Draft placed before author 29-03-2022 Sr.PS 3 Draft proposed and placed before the second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by second Member AM/JM 5 Approved draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr.PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7 Date of uploading of order Sr.PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R 11 Date of dispatch of order