Boob Pradip Kisanlal, Nashik V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 1307/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2917 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 18-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUBHASH K R
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Document seized; Documents seized
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

] IQ.KS ] IQ.KS ] IQ.KS ] IQ.KS IQ.KS IQ.KSIQ.KS IQ.KS IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE . . , , ' # BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NOS.1302 TO 1307/PN/2014 '% % / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2002-03 TO 2004-05 SHRI BOOB PRADIP KISANLAL, PLOT NO.P-8, MIDC, AMBAD, NASHIK 422 010 MAHARASHTRA. PAN NO. ABRPB9542Q . / APPELLANT V/S ACIT, CIRCLE-1, NASHIK . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : NONE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUBHASH K.R. / ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : ITA NOS. 1302, 1304 AND 1306/PN/2014 FILED BY THE ASSESS EE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 10-04-201 4 OF THE CIT(A)-I, NASHIK RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 T O 2004-05 RESPECTIVELY. ITA NOS. 1303, 1305 AND 1307/PN/2014 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 10-04-2014 OF THE CIT(A)-I, NASHIK RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-0 3 TO 2004-05 RESPECTIVELY WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE OR DER OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT BY / DATE OF HEARING :12.01.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:15 .01.2016 2 ITA NOS.1302 TO 1307/2014 THE AO. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, ALL THESE APPEALS W ERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. THIS IS THE SECOND ROUND OF LITIGATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNA L. EARLIER THE TRIBUNAL HAD RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO TH E FILE OF THE CIT(A) TO RE-ADJUDICATE THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESS EE AFTER CONFRONTING AND PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEAR D TO THE ASSESSEE SINCE THE CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 02-01-2012 H AD DISMISSED THE APPEALS FOR NON PROSECUTION. 2.1 IN THIS CASE, NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT ON 27-08-201 5 FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING ON 15-10-2015. SINCE NOBODY APPEA RED ON THAT DATE NOTICE WAS SENT BY RPAD FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING ON 12-01- 2016. ALTHOUGH THE NOTICE WAS DULY SERVED ON THE ASSE SSEE (ACKNOWLEDGEMENT PLACED ON RECORD) NOBODY APPEARED ON B EHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY PETITION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT OF THE CA SE WAS FILED. THEREFORE, THESE APPEALS ARE BEING DISPOSED OF AFTER CONSID ERING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND AFTER HEARING THE LD. DEPA RTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. ITA NO.1302/PN/2014 (A.Y. 2002-03) : 3. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND RUNNING A PETROL PUMP BESIDES DEALIN G IN LUBRICANTS. EARLIER HE WAS ONE OF THE PARTNERS OF M /S. K.R. BOOB & SONS (RUNNING A PETROL PUMP) WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN D ISSOLVED AND THE ASSESSEE HAS BECOME THE PROPRIETOR. A SEARCH AN D SEIZURE ACTION U/S.132 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF ONE SHRI SHRIRAM HIRALAL SONI, 1168, RAVIVAR PETH P UNE AND HIS BROTHER. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION U/S 132 IN THE CASE OF SHRI SHRIRAM H. SONI ON 29-07-2003, A LARGE NUMBER OF 3 ITA NOS.1302 TO 1307/2014 DOCUMENTS AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE SEIZED RELATING TO HIS MONEY LENDING BUSINESS. APART FROM THE REGULAR TRAN SACTIONS RELATING TO THE FINANCE BROKERAGE, CERTAIN INCRIMIN ATING DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE ADVANCES OF CASH LOANS RUNNING INTO SEVERAL CRORES OF RUPEES, WERE ALSO FOUND AND SEIZED. THESE DOCUME NTS WERE MOSTLY IN THE FORM OF BLANK PROMISSORY NOTES (DULY SIGNED BY THE BORROWERS), BLANK UNDATED CHEQUES DULY SIGNED BY TH E BORROWERS (WITH AMOUNT OF LOAN MENTIONED). BESIDES, THE ENTRI ES IN THE CASH BOOK (OF PART PERIOD), VIDE B. NO.100/PANCHANAMA DA TED 02-08- 2003, CHECKLIST OF THE BORROWERS INDICATING THE DUE DATES OF PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND BROKERAGE TO SHRI SONI WERE FOUND. 4. AS PER DETAILS ON RECORD, THE METHOD FOLLOWED BY SHRI SONI WAS THAT THE CASH LOAN WAS NORMALLY ADVANCED FOR 90 DAYS, AFTER DEDUCTING THE INTEREST AMOUNT (VARYING FROM 1.5% TO 2% P.M.) AND THE BROKERAGE AMOUNT (BETWEEN 0.25% TO 0.50% P.M.). THUS FOR A LOAN OF RS.L LAKH, THE BORROWER RECEIVED ONLY RS. 9 4,750/- (AFTER DEDUCTING INTEREST OF RS. 4,500/- @ 1.5% P.M. FOR 3 MONTHS AND BROKERAGE OF RS.750/- @ 0.25% P.M. FOR THREE MONTHS). AT THE TIME OF BORROWING THE CASH LOANS, THE BORROWERS HAN DED OVER THE BLANK CHEQUE (OF THE FULL AMOUNT BORROWED) AND PROM ISSORY NOTE. ANOTHER PROMISSORY NOTE (FOR 1% OF THE AMOUNT BORRO WED) WAS ALSO OBTAINED FROM THE BORROWER, WHICH WAS TO KEEP TRACK OF THE INTEREST PAYMENT ON DUE DATES BY THE BORROWER. 5. AS PER THE INCRIMINATING SEIZED DOCUMENTS, BOOKS OF ACC OUNT RELATING TO MONEY LENDING BUSINESS, FINANCE BROKERAGE, ADV ANCE OF CASH LOANS, ETC. THE ASSESSEE SHRI PRADIP KISANLAL BOOB, NA SHIK WAS ALSO FOUND TO BE ONE OF THE BORROWERS OF SHRI SHRIRAM H. SONI AND FOUND TO HAVE AVAILED LOAN TRANSACTION THROUGH SHRI SONI 4 ITA NOS.1302 TO 1307/2014 (RS. 10,00,000/- ADVANCED ON 30-06-2001). THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER DETAILED SCRUTINY MADE ADDITION OF RS. 1,57,500/- (RS.1,35,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST AND RS. 22,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF BROKERAGE ON OUTSTANDING LOAN) FOR A.YS. 2002-03, RS.2,10,000/- FOR A.Y. 2003-04 (RS. 1,80,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST AND RS. 30,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF BROKERAGE ON OUTSTANDING LOAN) AND RS. 2,10,000/- FOR A.Y. 2004-05 (RS. 1,80,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST AND RS. 30,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF BROKERAGE ON OUTSTANDING LOAN). 6. IN APPEAL THE LD.CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 6. I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ORDERS OF THE HONBLE ITAT AND CIT(A) AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLAN T AND THE COPIES OF THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS FOUND AND SEIZED FROM THE P REMISES OF SHRI SHRIRAM H. SONI DURING SEARCH ON 29-07-2003. THE AP PELLANT IN HIS ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAS QUESTIONED THE VALIDI TY OF ISSUING NOTICE U/S.153C OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT IN HIS LENGTHY SUB MISSION HAS REFERRED TO VARIOUS POINTS SUCH AS DELAY IN ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 153 C, ISSUE OF NOTICE TO INDIVIDUAL AND RECORDING OF THE SATISFACTION NOTE, ETC. I FIND FROM THE RECORD THAT TWO UNDATED CHEQUES OF RS. 5 LACS EACH DR AWN ON INDIAN BANK A/C NO.367 ISSUED BY M/S. K.R. BOOB AND SONS, SIGNED BY SHRI PRADEEP KISANLAL BOOB AS ITS PARTNER AND FOUR BLANK PROMISSORY N OTES SIGNED BY SHRI PRADEEP K. BOOB AS A PARTNER OF M/S. K.R. BOOB AND SONS (TWO EACH OF RS. 5 LACS AND 2 EACH OF RS. 5000/-) WERE SEIZED FROM T HE PREMISES OF MR. SONI. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, STATEME NT OF SHRI PRADEEP KISANLAL BOOB WAS RECORDED AND HE WAS CONFRONT ED WITH THE SAID CHEQUES AND PROMISSORY NOTES. SHRI PRADIP KISANLAL BOOB I.E. THE APPELLANT STATED THAT THEY REQUIRED A LOAN OF RS. 10 LACS FOR WHICH DISCUSSION WITH MR. SHRIRAM SONI WERE IN PROGRESS AND HE DEMANDED ADVANCE SECURITY IN THE FORM OF CHEQUES. THE ABOVE FA CTS CLEARLY PROVE THAT THESE CHEQUES WERE ISSUED BY THE APPELLANT AS A PAR TNER OF M/S. K.R. BOOB & SONS WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN DISSOLVED AND THE APPELLANT HAS BECOME THE PROPRIETOR. NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE ACT WA S ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT ON THE BASIS OF THESE SEIZED CHEQUES AND PROMI SSORY NOTES IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AFTER THE FIRM WAS DISSOLVED AN D THE APPELLANT HAD BECOME ITS PROPRIETOR. I FURTHER FIND THAT THE REQUIREMENTS AS GIVEN IN SECTION 153C OF THE ACT WERE COMPLIED WITH BY THE AO S CONCERNED. HENCE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 153C W AS NOT IN ORDER IS DEVOID OF MERIT. THE SAME IS REJECTED. THE APPELLANT HAS CITED MANY JUDGEMENTS WHEREIN NOTICE U/S 153C WAS ISSUED AFTER THE GAP OF 31 MONTHS OR 6 YEARS ETC. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE NOTICE U/S 153C WAS ISSUED WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME AFTER THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSM ENT OF MR. SONI U/S 153A. I FIND THAT THE APPELLANT'S ARGUMENTS ARE SOM EWHAT MISPLACED AS FAR AS PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT ARE CONC ERNED. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO STATED THAT THE CHEQUES WERE ISSUED BY THE FIRM AND NOT 5 ITA NOS.1302 TO 1307/2014 THE INDIVIDUAL. HENCE NO ACTION IN THE CASE OF THE A PPELLANT WAS CALLED FOR. AS ALREADY STATED ABOVE, CHEQUES WERE ISSUED BY M/S K.R. BOOB & SONS IN WHICH THE APPELLANT WAS A PARTNER FOR THE A.YS. 2002- 03 TO 2004-05 I.E. THE A.YS. IN APPEAL. WHEN THE NOTICE U /S 153C WAS ISSUE D THE APPELLANT HAD BECOME THE PROPRIETOR OF M/S K.R. BOOB AND SONS WHICH IS IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING OF PETROL PUMP. THE APPELLANT HAS A LSO STATED THAT THERE ARE NUMBER OF 'BOOBS' IN NASHIK AND WHY THE NOT ICE WAS ISSUED TO SHRI P. K. BOOB ONLY. THE APPELLANT IN ITS SUBMISSION H AD ALREADY ACCEPTED THAT THE CHEQUES WERE ISSUED BY M/S K.R. BOOB & SONS IN WHICH THE APPELLANT WAS A PARTNER DURING THE A.YS. 2002-03 TO 2004-05 (UNDER APPEAL). SHRI P.K. BOOB IN HIS STATEMENT HAS ALREADY A CCEPTED ISSUING CHEQUES FOR OBTAINING LOAN OF RS. 10 LACS. WITH THESE F ACTS, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT AO'S ACTION OF ISSUING NOTICE U/S 1 53 WAS JUSTIFIED AND HE HAS ISSUED IT ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. WITH THIS ALL THE GROUNDS OF THE APPELLANT IN REGARD TO VALIDITY O F ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 153C STAND REJECTED. 6.1 AS REGARDS MERIT OF THE CASE, THE APPELLANT HAS ST ATED THAT THOUGH BLANK CHEQUES WERE GIVEN AND BLANK PROMISSORY CHEQUES W ERE SIGNED, LOAN TRANSACTION DID NOT MATERIALIZE. HENCE, THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CHEQUES AND BROKERAGE DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL. A PERUSAL OF THE COPIES OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT PROVES OTHERWISE. CHECK LIST PREPARED BY MR. SONI FOR THE PERIOD 01/09/2001 TO 31/12/2002 SHOWS THE APPELLANT AS A BORROWER OF RS. 10 LACS FOR A PERIOD OF 90 MONTHS AT INTEREST RATE OF 1.50% AND BROKERAGE OF 0.25%. ONE ' SHRI S.K.' IS SHOWN AS INVESTOR AGAINST THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT. MR. SON I'S DOCUMENT CLEARLY WRITES BOOB (NSK) AS THE NAME OF THE BORROWER. FURTHE R; THE DOCUMENT DATED 12/08/2001 SEIZED FROM MR. SONI SHOWS MR. BOOB(N SK) AS BORROWER WITH CODE 76 AND A/C B048. APPELLANT IS SHOW N AS DEBTOR UNDER THE MAIN HEAD AND BORROWER UNDER THE SUB HEAD. PAGE 253 DATED 30/06/2001 OF ANNEXURE A SHOWS ADVANCE OF RS.9,47,500/ - AGAINST THE NAME OF 'BOOBJI NASHIK'. ALL THESE DOCUMENTS ESTABLISH B EYOND DOUBT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD INFACT TAKEN A LOAN OF RS.10 LACS THROUGH MR. SONI AT INTEREST RATE OF 1.5% WITH THE BROKERAGE OF 0.25%. H ENCE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT TRANSACTION DID NOT MATERIALIZE IS DE VOID OF FACT AND MERIT. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO FAILED TO PROVIDE ANY SATISFACTO RY EXPLANATION AS TO WHY THESE DOCUMENTS WERE STILL KEPT WITH MR. SONI IF T HE LOAN TRANSACTION DID NOT MATERIALIZE. THE APPELLANT THROUGH ITS LENGT HY SUBMISSION HAS TRIED TO MIS-REPRESENT THE FACTS. IN THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES MENTIONED ABOVE, THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT THE LOAN TRANSACTIONS DID NOT MATERIALIZE IS HEREBY REJECTED. THE AO'S ADD ITIONS OF RS.1,57,500/- , RS.2,10,000/- AND RS. 2,10,000/- FOR A.YS. 2002-03, 2003-04 AND 2004- 05 RESPECTIVELY ARE HEREBY CONFIRMED. 7. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : (1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS OF RS.1 ,57,500/- MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 6 ITA NOS.1302 TO 1307/2014 (2) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN GIVING A FINDING THAT TH E CHEQUES AND PROMISSORY NOTES SIGNED BY THE FIRM OF M/S K.R.BOOB & SO NS, SEIZED FROM SHRI SHRIRAM H. SONI OF PUNE, WERE IN THE INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY OF THE APPELLANT AFTER THE FIRM WAS DISSOLVED AND THE APPELLA NT HAD BECOME THE PROPRIETOR THEREOF, WHEN ACTUALLY THE FIRM WAS DISSOLV ED MUCH LATER ON 28/12/2003. (3) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN GIVING A FINDING THAT WH EN THE NOTICE ULS 153C WAS ISSUED FOR A. Y.2002-03 TO THE APPELLANT INDIVIDUA L ON 29/05/2008, THE APPELLANT HAD BECOME THE PROPRIETOR OF M/S. K.R. BOOB & SONS AND ALSO ERRED IN OVERLOOKING THE FACT THAT ALLEGED BORR OWING WAS IN F.Y.2001- 02 WHEN THE FIRM OF M/S K.R.BOOB & SONS WAS IN EXISTING AND WAS NOT DISSOLVED. (4) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN GIVING A FINDING THAT TH E REQUIREMENTS OF LAW AS GIVEN IN SECTION 153C OF THE ACT WERE COMPLIED WI TH BY THE AOS CONCERNED, WITHOUT EXAMINING AND VERIFYING WHETHER THE AO OF SHRI SHRIRAM H. SONI OF PUNE HAD RECORDED THE SATISFACTION NOTE. (5) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN OVERLOOKING THE SPECIFIC GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE APPELLANT AND ERRED IN WITHOUT CONSIDER ING THE WRITTEN ARGUMENTS MADE BEFORE HIM ABOUT THE REQUIREMENT OF SE CTION 153C ABOUT RECORDING OF SATISFACTION NOTE BY THE AO OF SHRI SHRI RAM H. SONI OF PUNE. (6) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN OVERLOOKING THE FINDING GIVEN IN A DECISION DATED 29/01/2013 OF THE JURISDICTIONAL BENCH ITAT PU NE IN THE CASE OF ITA VS. SMT PUSH PALATA A. LOYA IN ITA NO. 785 TO 787 /PN/2011. (7) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN COMING TO A CONCLUSION TH AT THE WORDS 'BOOB NSK', WRITTEN IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS OF SHRI SHRIRAM H. SONI OF PUNE, REFER TO THE APPELLANT WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY CORR OBORATIVE EVIDENCE. (8) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE REMARKS IN T HE DECISIONS OF HIMALAYA DISTRIBUTORS VS. ITO (2009) 125 TTJ (PUNE) 70 5 : (2009) 29 DTR 267 AND OF MEGHMANI ORGANICS LTD. (2010) 129 TTJ (AHD) 255 AND SMT. GODAVARI DEVI AGRAWAL VS. JCIT (2005) 95 TTJ (N AG) 720. (9) THE APPELLANT CRAZE LEAVE TO AMEND, ALTER, ADD OR DELETE ANY GROUND OF APPEAL. 8. IDENTICAL GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN FOR A.YRS. 2003-04 A ND 2004-05. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AV AILABLE ON 7 ITA NOS.1302 TO 1307/2014 RECORD. WE FIND IN THE INSTANT CASE THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.1,57,500/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S.69C OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF ENTRIES IN SEIZED DOCUMENTS/ACCOUNTS FOUND FROM THE PREMISES OF SHRI SHRIRAM H. SONI. THE AO HAS GIVEN COGENT REASONS WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION. WE FIND THE LD.CIT(A) WHILE SUSTAINING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO HAS GIVEN VALID REASONS WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS. IN OUR O PINION, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS A REASONED ONE AND DOES NOT CALL FO R ANY INTERFERENCE FROM OUR SIDE. WE ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE SA ME AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. FOLLOWING SIMILAR REASONINGS THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A.YRS. 200 3-04 AND 2004-05 ARE ALSO DISMISSED. ITA NOS. 1303, 1305 AND 1307/PN/2014 (A.YRS. 2002-0 3 TO 2004-05) : 10. THE ASSESSEE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO U/ S.271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 AMOUNTING TO RS.48,200/- FOR A.Y. 20 02-03, RS.66,150/- FOR A.Y. 2003-04 AND RS.69,300/- FOR A.Y. 2004-05. 11. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE AO MADE ADD ITION OF RS.1,57,500/- DURING A.Y. 2002-03, RS.2,10,000/- FOR A.Y. 2003- 04 AND ANOTHER RS.2,10,000/- FOR A.Y. 2004-05 AS MENTIONED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH NO.5 OF THIS ORDER. SUBSEQUENTLY TH E AO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. AFTE R REJECTING THE VARIOUS EXPLANATIONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE THE AO LEVIED PENALTY OF RS.48,200/- FOR A.Y. 2002-03, RS.66,150/- FOR A.Y. 2 003-04 AND RS.69,300/- FOR A.Y. 2004-05. 8 ITA NOS.1302 TO 1307/2014 12. IN APPEAL THE LD.CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING VARIOUS SUBMIS SIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM CONFIRMED THE PENALTY LEV IED BY THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 6. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE PENALTY ORDERS, THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. I HAVE CONFIRMED THE QUANTUM ADDITIONS IN ITA NOS. CIT( A)-I/572 TO 574/2013-14 DATED 10-04-2014 FOR THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS HOLDING AS UNDER : AS REGARDS MERIT OF THE CASE, THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT THOUGH BLANK CHEQUES WERE GIVEN AND BLANK PROMISSORY CHEQUES WERE SIGNED, LOAN TRANSACTION DID NOT MATERIALIZE. HENCE, THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED IN MAKING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CHEQUE S AND BROKERAGE DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL. A P ERUSAL OF THE COPIES OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL FURNISHED BY THE APP ELLANT PROVES OTHERWISE. CHECK LIST PREPARED BY MR. SONI FOR THE P ERIOD 01-09- 2001 TO 31-12-2002 SHOWS THAT THE APPELLANT AS A BORR OWER OF RS.10 LACS FOR A PERIOD OF 90 MONTHS AT INTEREST RATE OF 1.50% AND BROKERAGE OF 0.25%. ONE SHRI S.K. IS SHOWN AS INVEST OR AGAINST THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT. MR. SONIS DOCUMENT CLER AELY WRITE BOOB (NSK) AS THE NAME OF THE BORROWER. FURTHER, TH E DOCUMENT DATED 12-08-2001 SEIZED FROM MR. SONI SHOWS MR. BOOB ( NSK) AS BORROWER WITH CODE 76 AND A/C.B048. APPELLANT IS SH OWN AS DEBTOR UNDER THE MAIN HEAD AND BORROWER UNDER THE S UB HEAD. PAGE 253 DATED 30-06-2001 OF ANNEXURE A SHOWS ADVANCE OF RS.9,47,500/- AGAINST THE NAME OF BOOBJI NASHIK. AL L THESE DOCUMENTS ESTABLISH BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE APPELLANT HA D INFACT TAKEN A LOAN OF RS.10 LACS THROUGH MR. SONI AT INTERE ST RATE OF 1.5% WITH THE BROKERAGE OF 0.25%. HENCE APPELLANTS CONT ENTION THAT TRANSACTION DID NOT MATERIALIZE IS DEVOID OF FACT AND MERIT. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO FAILED TO PROVE ANY SATISFACTORY EXP LANATION AS TO WHY THESE DOCUMENTS WERE STILL KEPT WITH MR. SONI I F THE LOAN TRANSACTION DID NOT MATERIALIZE. THE APPELLANT THRO UGH ITS LENGTHY SUBMISSION HAS TRIED TO MIS-REPRESENT THE FACTS. IN THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES MENTIONED ABOVE, THE APPELLANTS CON TENTION THAT THE LOAN TRANSACTIONS DID NOT MATERIALIZE IS HERE BY REJECTED. THE AOS ADDITIONS OF RS.1,57,500/-, RS.2,10,000/- AND RS.2,10,000/- FOR A.YS.2002-03, 2003-04 AND 2004-05 R ESPECTIVELY ARE HEREBY CONFIRMED. 6.1 FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS VERY MUCH CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT HAD CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND ALSO FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WITH REGARD TO PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND BROKERAGE ON LOAN OF RS.10,00,000/- OBTAINED THROUGH SHRIRAM HIRALAL SONI. THE APPELLANT HA S QUESTIONED THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) IN HIS HANDS STATING T HAT HE HAD SIGNED THE CHEQUES AS A PARTNER OF THE FIRM AND DID NOT HAVE ANY TRANSACTION IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION DID NOT MATERIALIZE. ALL THESE ISSUES HAVE B EEN DISCUSSED IN DETAIL IN THE APPELLATE ORDER NO.NSK/CIT(A)-L/572 TO 574/2013- 14 DATED 10/04/2014 FOR A.YS. 2002-03, 2003-04 AND 2004-05. THE APPELLANT HAS TRIED TO MIS-REPRESENT THE FACTS BY TAKING GROUNDS W HICH ARE DEVOID OF FACTS AND MERIT. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE C ONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE APPELLANT HAD CONCEALED ITS PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND 9 ITA NOS.1302 TO 1307/2014 FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN LEVYING PENALTIES U/S.271(1)(C) AMOUNTING TO RS.48,200 /-, RS.66,150/- AND RS.69,300/- FOR A.YS. 2002-03, 2003-04 AND 2004-0 5 RESPECTIVELY. THE SAME ARE CONFIRMED. 13. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEA L BEFORE US. 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE A ND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THE LD.CI T(A) WHILE CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO HAS GIVEN A CLEAR CUT FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME AN D ALSO FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WITH REGARD TO P AYMENT OF INTEREST AND BROKERAGE ON LOAN OF RS.10 LAKHS OBTAINED TH ROUGH SHRI SHRIRAM HIRALAL SONI. HE HAS ALSO GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS TRIED TO MISREPRESENT THE FACTS BY TAKING GROUNDS W HICH ARE DEVOID OF FACTS AND MERIT. THERE IS NO OTHER MATERIAL BEFOR E US TO CONTRADICT THE FACTUAL FINDING GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) WHILE UPHOLD ING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. IN OU R OPINION THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 IS A REASONED ONE AND DO ES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE FROM OUR SIDE. WE ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE ORDER O F THE CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE I. T. ACT BY THE AO FOR ALL THE 3 YEARS AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 15. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15-01-2016. SD/- SD/- ( VIKAS AWASTHY ) ( R.K. PANDA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IQ.KS PUNE ; # DATED :15 TH JANUARY 2016. LRH'K 10 ITA NOS.1302 TO 1307/2014 ( )'+ , / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. CIT (A) - I, NASHIK 4. 5. 6. CIT-I, NASHIK ' *, *, IQ.KS / DR, ITAT, B PUNE; / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , IH ' //TRUE COPY// / * / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY *, IQ.KS / ITAT, PUNE