1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.152 & 153/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009 - 2010 M/S CORONA PLUS INDUSTRIES LTD., CA ASHOK KUMAR NIGAM, 87/8 - C, ACHARYA NAGAR, KANPUR - 208 003 PAN:AAACC5820H VS. DY.C.I.T. - 5, KANPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF LEARNED CIT(A) - II, KANPUR BOTH DATED 30/12/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. OUT OF THESE TWO APPEALS, ONE APPEAL IS IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS AND THE OTHER IS IN RESPECT OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. BOTH THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF HEARING INSPITE OF NOTICE AND HENCE, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE TH ESE APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE EX - PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 16/07/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 2 /08/2014 2 3. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMI SSIONS OF LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS , THERE WERE TWO ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FIRST ADDITION IS OF RS.10 LAC WHICH WAS MADE ON THE BASIS THAT RECEIPT W AS FOUND AS PER WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS.20 LAC OUT OF WHICH RS.10 LAC WAS RECEIVED IN CASH AND BALANCE BY THREE CHEQUES TOWARDS SALE OF PROPERTY. THE CASH RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT DISCLOSED AND HENCE, THE ADDITION WAS MADE. THE SECOND ADDITION WAS MADE OF RS.3.45 LAC U/S 40A(3) IN RESPECT OF CASH PAYMENT EXCEEDING RS.20 ,000 IN A DAY TO ONE PARTY . WE FIND THAT BOTH THESE ADDITIONS ARE JUSTIFIED IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE BECAUSE IF CASH IS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF ON MONEY, WHICH IS NOT DISCLOSED BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT, ADDITION HAS TO BE MADE AND FOR CASH PAYMENT IN EXCESS OF RS.20,000/ - PER DAY TO ONE PARTY ALSO, DISALLOWANCE IS TO BE MADE U/S 40A(3) OF THE ACT. HENCE, IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE , WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 6. NOW WE TAKE UP THE PENALTY APPEAL. WE FIND THAT THE PENALTY HAS BEEN IMPOSED IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITION OF RS.10 LAC S IN RESPECT OF RECEIPT OF ON MONEY IN CASH AND ALSO IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) OF THE ACT. THE NON DISCLOSURE OF CASH RECEIVED ON SALE OF PROPERTY IS NO DOUBT A CONCEALMENT OF INCOME FOR WHICH PENALTY IS JUSTIFIED. FOR DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) ALSO, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE SUO MOTU DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY HIM AND SINCE IT WAS NOT DONE, THIS IS ALSO CONCEALMENT. 3 HENCE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, PENALTY IS JUSTIFIED FOR THIS DISALLOWANCE ALSO. UNDER THESE FACTS, WE DO NOT FI ND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE PENALTY ORDER ALSO. THE PENALTY APPEAL IS ALSO DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE STAND DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2 2 /08/2014 *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR