Shri Sureshsingh Shripalsingh Rajput, Surat V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(4), Now Ward-3(3)(4), Surat

ITA 256/SRT/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1824 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 17-07-2022
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 30-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Peak credit
• Section: 69; 271(1)(c); 274

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,स ु रत Ûयायपीठ, स ु रत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./ITA No.256/SRT/2019(AY 2010-11) (Hearing in Virtual Court) Shri Sureshsingh. Shripalsingh Rajput, C/o Mr. Pramod P. Singh, 3007, 3 rd Floor, Shree Mahavir Textile Market, Nr. Land Mark Empire, Magob, Surat-395010 PAN : AIUPR 1003 Q Vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-9(4) [now 3(3)(4)], Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat अपीलाथȸ/Appellant Ĥ×यथȸ /Respondent Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से /Assessee by None राजèव कȧ ओर से /Revenue by Shri Anurag Dubey Sr-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing 18.07.2022 उɮघोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of pronouncement 26.07.2022 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income tax-3, Surat [for short to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] dated 15.02.2019, which in turn, arises against penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ITA No.256/SRT/2019 (A.Y 10-11) Sh. Sureshsingh S Rajput 2 Act’) dated 21.04.201 for assessment year (AY) 2010-11. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the penalty order so passed by the ld. Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A) is bad-in-law as the orders so passed by the ld. Lower authorities have not considered the appellant’s contention that notice u/s 274 failed to explicitly mention that penalty proceedings are being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or that for concealing particulars of income. Therefore, the order so passed on the basis of notice issued without recording proper satisfaction is bad-in-law and the same deserves to be quashed.” 2. Brief facts of the case are assessee is an individual and earned salary income from Shashi Silk Mills and earned interest income. The Assessing Officer received AIR information that assessee has deposited cash of Rs.16.13 lakhs in his S.B. account of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Surat bearing account No.11062151004647. The assessee has not shown the details of this bank in his return of income. The Assessing Officer issued show cause notice dated 12.02.2013 as to why the peak amount reflected in his bank account of Rs.1,43,601/- on 18.03.2010 and Rs.3,22,717/- (20% of cash deposits of Rs.16,13,588/-) be added in his total income. The assessing officer recorded that no reply was filed by the assessee. The ITA No.256/SRT/2019 (A.Y 10-11) Sh. Sureshsingh S Rajput 3 Assessing Officer added to the total income of assessee as unaccounted income investment under section 69 of the Act while passing assessment order on 01.03.2013 passed under section 143(3). The assessing officer initiated penalty under section 271(1)(c). On appeal in quantum assessment, the Ld. CIT(A) enhanced the addition to the extent of entire deposit of Rs. 16,13,568/-in the bank account during the relevant period in A.Y. 2010-11, vide his order dated 18.09.2014. On further appeal before Tribunal in quantum assessment, the enhanced addition was upheld vide order dated 26.07.2016 in ITA No. 703/Ahd/ 2016. 3. The assessing officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) vide his order dated 21.04.2017. Before levying penalty, the assessing officer issued show cause notice under section 274/271 dated 06.03.2017. The assessing officer noted that no reply was filed by the assessee. The assessing officer levied the penalty @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded on the addition of Rs. 16,53,600/-. The assessing officer worked out the penalty of Rs. 4,60,537/-. Aggrieved by the levy of penalty the assessee filed appeal to Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A) the ITA No.256/SRT/2019 (A.Y 10-11) Sh. Sureshsingh S Rajput 4 assessee filed detailed written submissions. The submissions of the assessee are recorded in para-5 of the impugned order. In the submissions the assessee submitted that the assessing officer has not specified the charge in the notice and has signed the notice without striking inapplicable words in the notice. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee dismissed the appeal by taking view that during the assessment the assessee agreed for addition of 20% of Rs. 16,53,600/- as peak credit. The addition was enhanced to 16,53,600/- by ld CIT(A). the ld CIT(A) further held that voluntary discloser will not lead the assessee from mischief of penal proceedings of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Further aggrieved the assessee has filed present appeal before Tribunal. 4. None appeared on behalf of assessee despite sending notices through READ on more than three occasions. The notices sent at the address mentioned on Form-36, were returned back by the postal authorities, thus we left no option except to hear the submissions of the Ld. DR for the revenue and decide the appeal on the basis of material available on record. The Ld. DR ITA No.256/SRT/2019 (A.Y 10-11) Sh. Sureshsingh S Rajput 5 for the revenue submits that the case of assessee was reopened on the basis of information about the credit in the bank account of assessee. The said bank account was not disclosed by the assessee in his return of income. Though, initially the assessing officer made addition on the basis of peak credit. However, on appeal before ld CIT(A), the additions were enhanced to the entire credit in quantum assessment appeal. The enhanced addition was confirmed by Tribunal. And as per record of the revenue no further appeal is filed by the assessee and the additions has attained finality. The assessing officer before levying penalty granted sufficient opportunity to the assessee, however, the assessee failed to file his defence. The assessing officer levied minimum penalty, which has been confirmed by ld CIT(A). the assessee is intentionally avoiding the hearing as the assessee has no case on merit. The ld Sr DR for the revenue prayed to dismissed the appeal. 5. We have considered the rival submission of the ld Sr DR for the revenue and also perused the orders of lower authorities carefully. We find that the assessee has not raised any specific ITA No.256/SRT/2019 (A.Y 10-11) Sh. Sureshsingh S Rajput 6 ground of appeal on the merits of the penalty. The assessee has raised limited ground of appeal that the assessing officer has not specified specific limb in the show cause notice. No evidence regarding such plea is placed on record despite the facts that this appeal is pending from 2019. Neither the assessee has filed any evidence, nor came forward to explain the fact in his favour. Thus, in absence of any such supporting evidence we have no other option except to uphold the order of ld CIT(A) is sustain the order of penalty. In the result, the sole ground of appeal raised by these is dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 26/07/2022 and the result was also placed on the Notice Board. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr ARJUN LAL SAINI) (PAWAN SINGH) [लेखा सद᭭य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] [᭠याियक सद᭭य JUDICIAL MEMBER] Surat, Dated: 26/07/2022 Dkp. Out Sourcing Sr.P.S Copy to: 1. Appellant- 2. Respondent- 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR 6. Guard File True copy/ By order // True Copy // Sr. P.S. /Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Surat