Shri Sandeep Navinchandra Patel, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 2504/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7943 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 09-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 10-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R P MAURYA
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVETIA
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD SMC BENC H (BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA. NO: 2504/AHD/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) SANDEEP NAVINCHANDRA PATEL 55, SOMNATH NAGAR VIJAYNAGAR RD, NARANPURA, AHMEDABAD- 380013 V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 9 (4), AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: ABCPP 4875F APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. N. DIVETIA, AR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R. P. MAURYA, SR. D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 13 -12-201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18 -12-2017 PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS PREFERRED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)- XV, AHMEDABAD DATED 04.06.2014 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2 008-09. ITA NO. 2504 /AHD/2014 . A.Y. 2008-09 2 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/ S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,40,617/-. 3. THE ROOTS FOR THE LEVY OF PENALTY LIE IN THE ASSESS MENT ORDER DATED 08.12.2011 FRAMED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT . 4. DURING THE COURSE OF THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS, THE A.O. ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S RECEIVED CONTRACTUAL RECEIPT OF 18,00,559/-. THE A.O. FURTHER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING A BANK ACCOUNT WITH KALUPUR COMMERCIAL CO.OP BANK BEARING ACCOUNT NO. 0820102046 WHICH WAS NOT DISCLOSED TO T HE DEPARTMENT IN WHICH VARIOUS CREDIT ENTRIES OF CASH AND CHEQUES AR E APPEARING. 5. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF DE POSITS MADE IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT WHICH WAS NOT DISCLOSED TO THE DEPARTM ENT. IN ITS REPLY, THE ASSESSEE SIMPLY STATED THAT HE IS NOT MAINTAINING P ROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THEREFORE, THE SAID ACCOUNT WAS LEFT TO BE SHOW N AND OFFERED PROFIT OF RS. 2,47,338/-. 6. THE A.O. DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSES SEE AND ADDED RS. 6,83,100/- AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED S OURCES AND SEPARATELY INITIATED PENAL PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)( C) OF THE ACT. 7. DURING THE COURSE OF THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE A SSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN WHY PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED ON THE UND ISCLOSED DEPOSIT OF RS. ITA NO. 2504 /AHD/2014 . A.Y. 2008-09 3 6,83,100/- IN THE KALUPUR COMMERCIAL CO.OP BANK. ON RECEIVING NO PLAUSIBLE REPLY, THE A.O. LEVIED PENALTY OF RS. 2,4 0,617/-. 8. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) B UT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. 9. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. THE L D. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ONCE AGAIN STATED THAT HE HAS OFFERED RS. 2,47,338/ - AS PROFIT EARNED FROM THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT. THEREFO RE, NO PENALTY SHOULD BE LEVIED. THE LD. D.R. STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE FIN DINGS OF THE A.O. 10. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE W AS CAUGHT WITH UNDISCLOSED TRANSACTIONS AND UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOU NT, THE ASSESSEE OFFERED INCOME IN THE FORM OF PROFIT OUT OF THE SAI D TRANSACTION. WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO BASIS IN RESPECT OF SUCH PROFIT OF FERED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALREADY IN THE BUSINESS OF FOUR OPERAT IONS AND HAD DISCLOSED A PROFIT OF RS. 1,64,722/-. 11. IF THE REVENUE HAD NOT COME ACROSS THE SAID TRANSAC TIONS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WITH KALUPUR COMMERCIAL CO.OP BANK, THE ASS ESSEE WOULD NEVER HAVE DISCLOSED THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT TO THE REVENUE . 12. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THIS IS A CLEAR CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF THE BANK ACCOUNT AND THE CONCEALMENT OF THE TRANSACTIONS MAD E IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT. ON FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LEVY OF PENALTY IS JUSTIFIED AND THEREFORE NO REASON IS CALLED FOR TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDI NGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). ITA NO. 2504 /AHD/2014 . A.Y. 2008-09 4 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 18 - 12- 20 17 SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER TRUE COPY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 18/12/2017 RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHME DABAD