Madhukar Kapur, Agra V. A.C.I.T., Central Circle, Agra

ITA 190/AGR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 19020314 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 09-04-2012
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 26-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: WASEEN ARSHAD
• Assessee Lawyers: VINOD NAGPAL
• Keywords: Question of law; Block assessment
• Section: 260A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 190, 191 & 192/AGRA/2011 ASSTT. YEAR : 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2004-05 SHRI MADHUKAR KAPOOR, VS. A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIR CLE, 64, SURYA NAGAR, AGRA. AGRA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI VINOD NAGPAL, C.A. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI WASEEN ARSHAD, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 09.04.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER : 13.04.2012 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.: ALL THE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A)-II, AGRA DATED 21.02.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03, 2003-04 AND 2004-05, CHALLENGING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1 )(C) OF THE IT ACT. 2. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN ALL THESE AP PEALS, THEREFORE, ALL WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE DISPOSED OF THROUGH THIS COM MON / CONSOLIDATED ORDER. BOTH THE PARTIES STATED THAT THE FACTS ARE SAME IN ALL T HE APPEALS. ITA NO. 190, 191 & 192/AGRA/2011 2 3. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS AS NOTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDE R FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A MANAGING DIRECTO R OF M/S. MAHIM PATRAM PVT. LTD. THE ASSESSEE IS RECEIVING SALARY AS WELL AS RE NT FREE HOUSE, DRIVER ALONG WITH CAR, CHOWKIDAR, FREE FURNITURE, AIR CONDITIONER, FR IDGE AND OTHER PERQUISITES FROM THE SAID COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SHOWN ANY PE RQUISITE VALUE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME IN LIEU OF THESE FACILITIES. THE AO HAD ACCO RDINGLY ADDED THE VALUE OF PERQUISITES IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE L D. CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. THE AO COMPUTED THE PERQUISITES VALUE AS UNDER : (I). FREE HOUSE (10% OF SALARY) RS.22,800/- (II). FACILITY OF CHOWKIDARS RS.48,000/- (III). FURNITURE, AC, FRIDGE ETC. RS.10,000/- ------------- RS.80,800/- ------------- THE AO ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AS TO WHY PENALTY S HOULD NOT BE IMPOSED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT FOR CONCEALMENT OF THE PART ICULARS OF INCOME. THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO WAS NOT RESPONDED TO BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO IN THE PENALTY ORDER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME BY NOT SHOWING THE VALUE OF PERQUISITES IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND, THEREFORE, LIABLE FOR PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT. ITA NO. 190, 191 & 192/AGRA/2011 3 4. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE PENALTY ORDER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE OFFERED THE VALUE OF PE RQUISITES HIMSELF IN HIS OWN REPLY EVEN THOUGH THESE PERQUISITES WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE INCOME-TAX RETURN. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT NO SERVICE OF CHOWKIDAR & HELPER HAV E BEEN USED, AS THESE PERSONS WERE NOT PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE PRESENCE OF THESE PERSONS WAS FOR LIMITED PURPOSE FOR HELPING THE ASSESSEE, BEING THE MANAGIN G DIRECTOR, IN PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT WHEN SEAR CH OPERATION WAS CARRIED OUT, SUCH PERSONS WERE FOUND PRESENT AND IT WAS ARGUED D URING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT THESE PERSONS WERE PRESENT, BUT NO ADDITION WAS CALLED FOR, AS THESE PERSONS ARE NOT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ASSESS EE. THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE LE VY OF PENALTY. HIS FINDINGS IN THE APPELLATE ORDER IN PARA 2.2 AND 3 ARE REPRODUCE D AS UNDER : 2.2. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PENALTY ORDER AND TH E SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. AR. AS REGARDS THE ADDI TION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF FREE ACCOMMODATION, FURNITURE, AC ETC., IT HAS NOT BEEN DENIED THAT THESE WERE NOT PROVIDED BY THE M/S . MAHIM PATRAM (P) LTD. TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THA T THESE PERQUISITES WERE NOT SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT IN THE RETURN OF IN COME. IT WAS ONLY WHEN POINTED OUT BY THE AO THAT THESE WERE AGREED T O BY THE ASSESSEE FOR INCLUSION IN HIS INCOME. AS REGARDS THE CHOWKID AR AND HELPER IT HAS NOT BEEN DENIED THAT THESE PERSONS WERE NOT FOU ND WORKING FOR THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE ONLY ARG UMENT PUT FORWARD IS THAT THESE WERE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSES OF CARRYING OUT BUSINESS DUTIES. THE ARGUMENT OF THE A PPELLANT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS THESE PERSONS WERE WORKING AT THE RESID ENCE OF THE APPELLANT AND THE AO HAS RIGHTLY ASSESSED THE PERQU ISITE VALUE OF ITA NO. 190, 191 & 192/AGRA/2011 4 THESE PERSONS IN THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. AS TH E PERQUISITE VALUE AS ASSESSED BY THE AO WAS NOT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME, THEREFORE, THE AO HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED HIS PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THEREFORE, I A M OF THE OPINION THAT THE PENALTY HAS RIGHTLY BEEN IMPOSED BY THE AO AND THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 4.1 SIMILARLY, IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, THE FACT S ARE SAME AND THE AO MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF THE VALUE OF THREE PERQUISIT ES, NOTED ABOVE, IN A SUM OF RS.81,520/-, WHICH WERE NOT SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) ON QUANTUM CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. PENALTY N OTICE WAS ALSO NOT RESPONDED TO BY THE ASSESSEE. PENALTY WAS ACCORDINGLY LEVIED AND THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE PENALTY APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAME REASONIN G AS HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. 4.2 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, THE FACTS ARE SAME AND THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SHOWN ANY PERQUISITES VALUE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME IN LIEU OF THESE FACILITIES. HOWEVER, THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.48,250/- ON ACC OUNT OF FREE HOUSE, FURNITURE, AC, FRIDGE ETC. NO APPEAL IS PREFERRED BEFORE THE L D. CIT(A) ON QUANTUM. THE AO ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY, WHICH WAS NOT RESPONDED TO BY THE ASSESSEE. THE PENALTY WAS ACCORDINGLY IMPOSED. THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE SIMILAR ITA NO. 190, 191 & 192/AGRA/2011 5 REASONS, AS MENTIONED ABOVE, CONFIRMED THE LEVY OF PENALTY AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED THE AMOUNT OF PERQUISITES AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE FOR T HE PURPOSE OF ADDITION. THEREFORE, NO CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME IS MADE OUT. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS NOT RECORDED ANYTHING IN THE ORDERS THAT THE ASSESSEE DELIBERATELY CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOM E. HE ADMITTED THAT NO FIRST APPEAL WAS FILED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ON QUANTUM AND NO APPEAL IS PREFERRED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL CHALLENG ING THE QUANTUM ADDITIONS. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT NO CASE OF PENALTY IS, THUS, MAD E OUT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF TH E AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAV E GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HARPARSHAD AND COMPANY LTD. 328 ITR 53 HELD AS UNDE R: HELD, THAT THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR Q UASHING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE IRRELEVANT, NOT GERMANE TO THE ISSUE AND THE TRIBUNAL HAD LOST SIGHT OF ASPECTS WHICH HAD BEEN C ONCLUSIVELY ITA NO. 190, 191 & 192/AGRA/2011 6 ESTABLISHED IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS. THE TRIBUNA L HAD FAILED TO TAKE NOTE OF THE FACT THAT PART OF THE CLAIM AS COM MISSION WAS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE NOT BECAUSE R HAD RENDERED ANY SERV ICES BUT BECAUSE J HAD RENDERED SERVICES FOR WHICH IT WAS PAID 1 PER C ENT OF THE COMMISSION BY R OUT OF THE 3 PER CENT RECEIVED BY H ER. AS FAR AS COMMISSION TO R WAS CONCERNED, IT WAS ACCEPTED BY T HE TRIBUNAL IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS THAT SHE DID NOT RENDER ANY SERVICES AT ALL. THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO OFFER ANY EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITION OF RS.1,83,078 AND IT COULD BE DEEMED TO H AVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTI CULARS THEREOF, BY VIRTUE OF THIS EXPLANATION. THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT JU STIFIED IN DELETING THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER UNDER SECTION 271 (1) (C) OF THE ACT. THE FINDINGS GIVEN IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE RE LEVANT AND HAVE PROBATIVE VALUE. WHERE THE ASSESSEE PRODUCES N O FRESH EVIDENCE OR PRESENTS ANY ADDITIONAL OR FRESH CIRCUMSTANCES I N PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, HE WOULD BE DEEMED TO HAVE FAILED TO D ISCHARGE THE ONUS PLACED ON HIM AND THE LEVY OF PENALTY COULD BE JUST IFIED. EVEN IF THERE IS NO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNIS HING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS, BUT ON THE BASIS THEREOF TH E CLAIM WHICH IS MADE IS EX FACIE BOGUS, IT MAY STILL ATTRACT PENALT Y PROVISION. THE EXPLANATION APPENDED TO SECTION 271 (1) (C ) OF THE ACT ENTIRELY INDICATE THE ELEMENT OF STRICT LIABILITY O N THE ASSESSEE FOR CONCEALMENT OR FOR GIVING INACCURATE PARTICULARS WH ILE FILING RETURN. THE OBJECT BEHIND ENACTMENT OF SECTION 271 (1) (C) READ WITH THE EXPLANATIONS INDICATE THAT THE SECTION HAS BEEN ENA CTED TO PROVIDE FOR A REMEDY FOR LOSS OF REVENUE. THE PENALTY UNDER THA T PROVISION IS A CIVIL LIABILITY. WILLFUL CONCEALMENT IS NOT AN ESSE NTIAL INGREDIENT FOR ATTRACTING CIVIL LIABILITY AS IS THE CASE IN THE MA TER OF PROSECUTION UNDER SECTION 276C OF THE ACT. 6.1 THE HONBLE M. P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RUKMINI BAI 276 ITR 650 HELD AS UNDER: ITA NO. 190, 191 & 192/AGRA/2011 7 HELD, REJECTING THE APPLICATION, THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY EXPLANATION WHEN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE I NITIATED. THE EXPLANATION COULD BE THE SAME AS THAT GIVEN BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IF THAT HAD BEEN SO, IT WOULD HAVE HAD TO BE LOOKED INTO IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, BUT WHEN NO EXPLANATION WA S FILED, IT COULD NOT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT CONTEND FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE COURT THAT INTERFERENCE W AS WARRANTED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. CALLING FOR TH E STATEMENT OF CASE WAS NOT WARRANTED IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THE TRIBUNAL HAD RIGHTLY RECORDED THAT THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTI ON 271(1) (C) IN THE CASE WAS JUST AND PROPER. 6.2 THE HONBLE M. P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VIMAL G INNING AND PRESSING FACTORY VS. CIT 279 ITR 100 HELD AS UNDER: HELD, THAT FIRSTLY, IT WAS A CASE OF CONCEALMENT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. SECONDLY, IT WAS A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSE E MADE AN ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN BUT COULD NOT PERSUADE THE THREE AUTHORI TIES TO ACCEPT ITS EXPLANATION. THIRDLY, THE REFERENCE COURT COULD NOT GO INTO THE ADEQUACY OF EXPLANATION AGAIN IN ITS REFERENCE JURI SDICTION IN ABSTRACT FORM FOR WANT OF ANY LEGAL ISSUE/INTERPRETATION INV OLVED AND LASTLY, ONCE THE ADDITION WAS UPHELD PENALTY HAD TO BE IMPO SED CONSEQUENT UPON THE REJECTION OF THE EXPLANATION OFFERED. 6.3 THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SOM ENGINEERING CORPORATION VS. CIT 277 ITR 92 (ALL) HELD HELD, THAT THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961, WAS CLEARLY ATTRACTED IN THE PRESENT CASE INASMUCH AS THE ASSESSED INCOME WAS MORE THAN 80 PER CENT. OF T HE RETURNED INCOME, BEING RS.1,63,850 AS AGAINST THE RETURNED I NCOME OF RS.71,870. THE ONUS WAS ON THE ASSESSEE WHICH IT HA D FAILED TO DISCHARGE AS NO EXPLANATION WHATSOEVER WAS GIVEN BY IT BEFORE THE ITA NO. 190, 191 & 192/AGRA/2011 8 ASSESSING OFFICER. MOREOVER, THE TRIBUNAL HAD RECOR DED A CLEAR FINDING THAT BY DEBITING THE AMOUNT OF PURCHASE OF GOODS AT RS.51,314.74 TWICE, THE PROFITS HAD BEEN REDUCED. T HE LEVY OF PENALTY WAS THEREFORE JUSTIFIED. 6.4. HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KAMAL CHAND JAIN VS. ITO, 277 ITR 429 (DEL.) HELD IN PARA 6 & 7 OF THE JUDGMENT A S UNDER : 6. WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE ASST. YR. 1991-92. TH E EXPLANATION TO THE PROVISIONS OF S. 271 OF THE ACT WAS IN FORCE AT THE RELEVANT TIME. EXPLANATION 1 TO THIS SECTION WAS MA DE EFFECTIVE FROM 1ST APRIL, 1976. UNDER THE EXPLANATION WHERE AN EXP LANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND BY THE AO, OR EVEN THE CIT (A) TO BE FALSE OR THAT THE EXPLANATION WAS BONA FIDE AND FAILS TO SUB STANTIATE SUCH EXPLANATION, THEN THE AMOUNT ADDED OR DISALLOWED IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF SUCH PERSON AS A RESULT THEREOF WOU LD DEEM TO REPRESENT THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH PARTICULAR S HAVE BEEN CONCEALED. IN OTHER WORDS, THERE IS A DEEMED ADDITI ON IN THE EVENT THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES RECORD THEIR SATISFACTION THA T THERE IS NO PROPER AND PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE O R HE HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE SUCH EXPLANATION. OBVIOUSLY, THE LAW P LACES AN OBLIGATION UPON THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIALLY SUPPORT HIS EXPL ANATION IN ALL REASONABLE MANNERS. 7. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT THE TRIBUNAL IS A FINAL A UTHORITY IN RELATION TO FACTS AND NORMALLY THIS COURT WHILE EXA MINING THE MATTER WITHIN THE PURVIEW AND SCOPE OF S. 260A OF THE ACT, WOULD NOT INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT RECORDED BY THE AUTHORITI ES. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AO HAD RECORDED A FINDING WHICH HAS BEEN AFFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL, WHILE UPSETTING THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE CIT(A). THUS, IN OUR VIEW, NO QUESTION OF LAW, MUCH LESS A SUBSTA NTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES IN THE PRESENT APPEAL FOR OUR CONSIDERAT ION. ITA NO. 190, 191 & 192/AGRA/2011 9 7. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT O F THE ABOVE DECISIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN CO NFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT. IT IS ADMITTED FACT THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS A MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY AND HAD BEEN ENJOYING THE PERQUISITE S NOTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS ALSO ADMITTED FACT THAT NO PERQUISITES HAVE BEEN SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO SPECIFICALLY N OTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS ALSO, THE VALUE OF PERQUISITES WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED T O FILE THE DETAILS OF PERQUISITES ENJOYED FROM THE COMPANY. ONLY THEREAFTER, THE ASSE SSEE CAME UP WITH WORKING OF THE PERQUISITES FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAXATION. THESE FACTS WOULD SHOW THAT TILL THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS STARTED, THE ASSESSEE HAS NE VER SHOWN VALUE OF PERQUISITES IN THE RETURN OF INCOME IN ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEALS. THE ASSESSEE NEVER SURRENDERED THE VALUE OF PERQUISITES BEFORE T HE AO AND IT WAS ONLY WHEN THE SAME FACTS WERE POINTED OUT BY THE AO. THE ASSESSEE AGREED TO THE ADDITION. SINCE IN EARLIER YEARS ALSO, THE ADDITION WAS MADE OF THE VALUE OF PERQUISITES AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SHOW THE VALUE OF PERQUISITES IN T HE RETURN OF INCOME, WOULD CLEARLY ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO INTENTIO N TO OFFER THE SAME FOR TAXATION. IT WAS ONLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED FOR THE DETAIL S OF PERQUISITES, THE ASSESSEE ITA NO. 190, 191 & 192/AGRA/2011 10 AGREED FOR TAXATION. THE LD. CIT(A) IN ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2002-03 AND 2003-04 NOTED IN THE ORDERS THAT AT THE TIME OF SEARCH IN THE GRO UP CASES OF ASSESSEE, CHOWKIDAR AND HELPER WERE FOUND WORKING WITH THE ASSESSEE AND AS SUCH ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENTS. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HELPERS AND CHOWKIDAR WERE NOT WORKING FOR THE ASSE SSEE CANNOT BE BELIEVED. FURTHER, IF NO ADDITION IS MADE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 ON THIS ITEM, WOULD NOT BE A GROUND TO CANCEL THE PENALTY IN OTHER ASSESSME NT YEARS. THE AO ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE PENALTY STAGE F OR EXPLANATION, BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RESPOND TO THE PENALTY NOTICES AND NO EXPLA NATION WAS FILED AS TO WHY PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HAR PARSHAD AND COMPANY LTD. (SUPRA) SQUARELY APPLIES AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN TH ESE CASES. APART FROM IT, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO OFFER ANY EXPLANATION AT THE ASS ESSMENT AS WELL AS AT THE PENALTY STAGE. THEREFORE, THE DECISIONS CITED ABOVE ARE CLE ARLY APPLICABLE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEVY OF PENALTY. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED NO EXPLANATION AT ANY STAGE WITH REGARD TO THE ITEMS O F CONCEALED INCOME, THEREFORE, EXPLANATION-I TO SECTION 271(1)(C) IS CLEARLY ATTRA CTED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD, THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW WERE JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITA NO. 190, 191 & 192/AGRA/2011 11 LEVY OF PENALTY. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY OR IRREGULARITY IN THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR LE VY OF PENALTY. THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS. WE CONFIRM THE SAME AND DISMISS ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE A RE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (A.L. GEHLOT) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A), CONCERNED BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TRUE COPY