Shanthi Diamonds, CHENNAI V. ITO, Trichy

ITA 307/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 81281 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 19-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 1982-1983
• Appeal Filed On: 11-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: A S SRIRAMAN
• Keywords: Document seized; Revised return; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , C B ENCH, CHENNAI . , ! # $ , % & BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./I.T.A.NO. 307 & 308/MDS/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1982-83 & 1983-84) M/S.SHANTHI DIAMONDS 15, RANI STREET, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI. VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-II(1), TRICHY. PAN: ACHFS1640M ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. A.S.SRIRAMAN, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : MR. A.V.SREEKANTH , JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 19 TH NOVEMBER, 2014 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 TH NOVEMBER, 2014 / O R D E R PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JM: THESE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE COMMON ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) TIRUCHIRAPPALLI DATED 19.12.2 013 IN SUSTAINING THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)( C) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1982-83 & 1983-84. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A FIRM CONSISTING OF TWO FAMILY GROUPS NAMELY BKN KANNAN G ROUP AND BKN RAJARAM GROUP. THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT IN T HIS CASE WAS MADE ON 30.03.1990 DETERMINING THE TOTAL I NCOME 2 ITA NOS.307 & 308/MDS/2014 OF THE ASSESSEE AT ` 10,20,570/-. IN THE FIRST ROUND OF LITIGATION ASSESSEE WENT ON APPEAL BEFORE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS) WHO PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, BOTH THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE DEPARTMENT PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE ITAT AND THE TRIBUNAL BY ITS ORDER DA TED 10.02.2003 REMANDED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE IS SUES ON MERITS AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITIES TO THE PARTIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ACCORDINGLY FRESH ASSESSMEN T UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 250 OF THE ACT WAS MADE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1982-83 ON 30.03.2004. THERE WAS A SEARCH CONDUCTED IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE GR OUPS ON 20.10.1983 . DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, PROFIT AN D LOSS ACCOUNT AND TRIAL BALANCE AS ON 15.11.1982 WERE FOU ND AND SEIZED. AS PER THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS, THE CAPITAL AC COUNT OF THE PARTNERS AS ON 15.11.1982 ARE [M/S. KANNAN GROU P ` 12,73,480.58 + M/S. RAJARAM GROUP ` 8,48,987.16] TOTALING TO ` 21,22,467.64. HOWEVER, THE CAPITAL DISCLOSED IN T HE RETURN OF INCOME AS ON 31.03.1982 WAS ONLY ` 2,43,424/- AS PER THE TRIAL BALANCE INDICATED BELOW:- 3 ITA NOS.307 & 308/MDS/2014 S.NO. NAME AMT. ` 1. SRI BKN KANNAN ` 49,626 2. SRI BKN RAJARAM ` 2,737 3. SRI BKN SHANTILAL ` 33,651 4. SRI BK SEKAR ` 35,789 5. SRI B.K.JAYAKUMAR ` 31,624 6. SRI BKN VAIRAM ` 29,990 7. SRI B.K.SUKUMARAN ` 60,007 TOTAL ` 2,43,424 THEREFORE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PARTNERS CAPI TAL CONTRIBUTION AND CAPITAL DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AS ON 31.3.1982 CAME TO ` 18,79,043/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THIS REPRESENTED ONLY THE INCR EASE IN WEALTH POSITION OF THE PARTNERS WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISCLOSED AND ALSO UNACCOUNTED CAPITAL OF PARTNERS AS REFLECT ED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS IN THE FORM OF STOCK, DEBTORS, CAS H ETC. THE INCREASE IN THE WEALTH OF THE ASSESSEE WAS APPORTI ONED EQUALLY AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1982-83 AND 1983-84. THUS, THE INC REASE IN THE NET WEALTH ARE THE INCOME OUTSIDE THE BOOKS COMES TO ` 9,40,000/- AND THE SAME WAS TREATED AS INCOME FRO M OTHER SOURCES SINCE THE SOURCE FOR INCREASE IN PARTNERS CAPITAL ACCOUNTS WAS NOT EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM. 4 ITA NOS.307 & 308/MDS/2014 3. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1983-84 THE ASSESSING OF FICER STATED THAT ACCORDING TO PAGE NUMBERS 10 & 11 OF TH E SEIZED MATERIAL THE PROFIT AS ON 31.3.83 WAS ESTIMATED IN THE FOLLOWING NAMES:- ESTIMATED PROFIT FOR 4% MONTHS FOR BKN KANNAN GROUP : ` 1,65,189 ESTIMATED PROFIT FOR 4% MONTHS FOR BKN RAJARAM GROUP : ` 1,10,126 TOTAL : ` 2,75,245 SO, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1983-84 THE ACCRETION T O THE PARTNERS CAPITAL WAS TAKEN AT ` 9,40,000/- PLUS ` 2,75,945/- TOTALING TO ` 12,15,245/- AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ACCORDINGLY. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE WENT ON APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 4. IN THE COURSE OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE CL AIMED THAT RELIEF NOT BEING GIVEN FOR CLAIM OF JEWELLERY IN THE HANDS OF VARIOUS FAMILY MEMBERS TO THE EXTENT OF 755 GMS ( ` 1,96,435/-) AND CLAIMING THAT VALUE OF THE CLOSING STOCK BEING EXCESSIVE BY 35% (CLOSING STOCK IS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN VALUED AT SALE PRICE WHICH INCLUDED GROSS PROFIT O F 35% AND NOT AT COST PRICE BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADO PTED THE 5 ITA NOS.307 & 308/MDS/2014 VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK AS GIVEN IN THE SEIZED MATE RIALS) AND ALSO CLAIMING THAT THE INVESTMENT IN VARIOUS FAMILY MEMBERS WERE CONSIDERED AS UNACCOUNTED TO THE EXTENT OF ` 3,58,250/- EVEN WHEN THESE WERE FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL BY FIXING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1982-83 AT ` 7,05,600/- AND FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1983-84 AT ` 9,55,500/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED PENALTY NOTICE REQUIRING THE ASSESSE E TO FILE REPLY/EXPLANATION. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE TOOK SE VERAL ADJOURNMENTS AND PROMISED TO FILE REPLY. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER PASSED PENALTY ORDER STATING THAT THERE IS INCREASE IN THE PARTNERS CAPITAL AS ON 15.11.1982 AS PER SEIZE D DOCUMENT AT PAGE 16 AND THIS IS NOT INCONSONANCE WI TH THE CAPITAL DISCLOSED AS ON 31.03.1982 AND FURTHER FOR THE REASON THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE ANY EXPLANATION TO OFFER . THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED MINIMUM PENALTY FOR BO TH THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS. ON APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS) SUSTAINED THE PENALTY AND AGAINST WHI CH THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6 ITA NOS.307 & 308/MDS/2014 5. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THERE IS N O CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE P ARTICULARS OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT IN FACT REPLIES WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY THE OTHER GROUP M/S. BKN RAJARAM & SONS WHO WERE ALSO PARTNER S OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER BEFORE LEVY OF PENALTY. 6. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTS THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN LEVYING PENALTY U NDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE SUBMITS THAT PENALTY WAS LEVIED BASED ON THE SEIZED MATERIALS. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITS THAT THERE WAS NO PROPER EXPLANATION FOR THE UNDISCLOSED INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE ADDITIONS WERE SUSTAINED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND HE THEREFO RE SUBMITS THAT CERTAINLY THERE IS CONCEALMENT OF INCO ME AND FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WHIC H ATTRACTED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 7 ITA NOS.307 & 308/MDS/2014 7. HEARD BOTH SIDES. PERUSED ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHOR ITIES. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ELABORATELY AND SUSTAIN ED THE PENALTY HOLDING THAT THERE IS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME WHICH IS BASED ON SEIZED MATERIALS OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 5. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE A.R. OF THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE PENALTY OR DER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE IS A FIRM CONSISTING OF 2 FAMILY GROUPS NAMELY BKN KANNAN GRO UP AND BKN RAJARAM GROUPS. DURING THE SEARCH CONDUCTIO N ON 20.10.83 IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE, A PROF IT AND LOSS ACCOUNT (SEIZED AS DOCUMENT PAGE NO.7) OUTSTA NDING (SEIZED DOCUMENT PAGE NO.6) AND A TRIAL BALANCE (S EIZED DOCUMENT PAGE NO.1 AS ON 15.11.82) WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT PAGE NO.16 THE CAPI TAL ACCOUNT OF THE PARTNERS AS ON 15.11.82 OF THE KANNA N GROUP AND THE RAJARAM GROUP WERE INDICATED AS UNDER :- KANNAN GROUP : ` 12,73,480.58 RAJARAM GROUP ` 8,48,987.16 TOTAL - ` 21,22,467.64 6. HOWEVER CAPITAL DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM I N THE RETURN OF INCOME AS ON 31.3.82 WAS ONLY ` 2,43,424/- AS PER THE TRIAL BALANCE DETAILS INDICATED THEREON. THUS, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO AMOUNTS I.E. THE PARTNER S CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS AS PER PAGE 16 OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT ( ` 21,22,467/-) AND THE CAPITAL DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AS ON 31.3.82 ( ` 2,43,424) COMES TO ` 18,79,043/- . THE DIFFERENCE IS ATTRIBUTED TO THE INCREASE IN THE WEALTH POSITION OF THE PARTNERS AND THIS WAS APPORTIONED EQUALLY AND TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1982-83 A ND 1983-84. THUS THE INCREASE IN THE NET WEALTH ARE TH E INCOME OUTSIDE THE BOOKS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE WORKS O UT TO ` 9,40,000/- AND THIS AMOUNT WAS TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES SINCE IT WAS NOT EXPLAINED BY TH E ASSESSEE FIRM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF ` 1,68,290/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1982-83 AND ` 2,33,800 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1983-84 AND THE SAME WERE CONFIRMED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF 8 ITA NOS.307 & 308/MDS/2014 INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE ITAT D BENCH, CHENNAI VID E ITS ORDER DATED 6.4.2010 REVERTED BACK THE APPELLAT E ORDERS TO THE FILES OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WITH A DIRECTION TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDE R AFTER GIVING EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSE SSEE AND ALSO INCORPORATING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSE SSEE. 7. THE APPELLANT IN ITS SUBMISSIONS STATED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE PENALTY ORDERS ON 26.03.2008 FOR BOTH ASSESSMENT YEAR AFTER CONSIDERA BLE DELAY FROM THE DATES OF HEARING WHICH TOOK PLACE IN 26.12.2006 / 27.12.2006 AFTER RECEIVING APPELLANTS OBJECTS FOR THE PROPOSAL TO LEVY PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE APPELLANT IN HIS SUBMISSIONS STATED THAT THE ITO PA SSED THE PENALTY ORDERS BY OVERLOOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.275 OF THE ACT WHICH PRESCRIBE THE TIME LIMIT F OR PASSING THE PENALTY ORDER U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE A.R. OF THE APPELLANT FURTHER CONTENDED THAT PENALT Y ORDERS SHOULD BE PASSED WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF TH E FINANCIAL YEAR I WHICH THE APPELLATE ORDER IS PASSE D. IN PRESENT CASE THE APPELLATE ORDER WAS PASSED ON 26.05.2006 AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 275 OF THE ACT, THE PENALTY ORDERS ARE TO BE PASSED ON OR BEFORE 31.3.2008. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHT LY PASSED THE PENALTY ORDERS ON 26.03.2008 FOR BOTH ASSESSMENT YEAR 1982-83 AND 1983-84 WITHIN TIME LIM IT AS PER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 271(1)(A) OF THE ACT. TH E CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY FOR LEVYING OF PEN ALTY IS NOT CORRECT AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GRANTED SEVERA L OPPORTUNITIES BEFORE FINALIZING THE PENALTY ORDERS. THUS THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THERE IS INORDINAT E DELAY AND NO SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE FINALIZING THE PENALTY OR DERS IS TOTALLY DEVOID OF LOGIC ON THE PART OF THE APPELLAN T WHO HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT THE PENALTY ORDERS HAVE BEEN PASSED WELL WITHIN THE TIME FRAME AS PRESCRIBED U/S.275 OF THE IT ACT. HENCE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS REJECTED. 8. EVEN ON THE MERITS THERE IS NO TRUTH IN THE VERS ION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE ADDITION BASED ON THE ANA LYSIS OF THE PARTNERS CAPITAL ACCOUNT WOULD TANTAMOUNT TO P ROBING SOURCE FOR SOURCE IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANTS F IRM. THE APPELLANT FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL INF USE OF CAPITAL AS REFLECTED IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL WOULD C LEARLY INDICATE THE SOURCE AS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT ACC EPTABLE 9 ITA NOS.307 & 308/MDS/2014 ON THE GROUND THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE RESPEC TIVE AYS HAVE REACHED A FINALITY. ONCE THE ADDITIONS MA DE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS BASED ON THE SEIZED MATERIAL THEREBY ESTABLISHING A CLEAR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS, A NATURAL CONSEQUENTIAL PENAL COURSE OF ACTION WOULD AUTOMATI CALLY FOLLOW THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS EVEN THOUGH PENAL TY PROCEEDINGS ARE INDEPENDENT PROCEEDINGS. SIMILARLY THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION THAT THE ASSESSMENT IS FINAL LY SETTLED BY THE CIT APPEALS, TRICHY AS PER THE CONFE SSION MADE BY B.K.N. KANNAN DURING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S.13 2(4) WHICH IN THE OPINION OF THE APPELLANT GIVES IMMUNIT Y FROM PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1) (C) IS ALSO NOT COR RECT. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTABLISHED THE CONCEALM ENT OF INCOME BASED ON THE SOLID EVIDENCE IN THE FORM O F SEIZED MATERIAL PENALTY PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE WITHD RAWN OR CANCELLED MERELY ON THE BASIS OF REPLY FILED BY ONE OF THE PARTNER I.E. B.K.N. RAJARAM. THE RELIANCE PLAC ED BY THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT ALSO IS DISTINGUISHABLE AND ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THUS THE APPELLANT FAILED TO OFFER ANY EXPLA NATION FOR THE SOURCE OF INCREASE IN THE WEALTH POSITION O F THE PARTNERS AND HENCE THE PENALTY U/S.271(1) (C) IS AT TRACTED IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT OVER AND ABOVE THE APP ELLANT WAS NOT ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE AND FAILED TO PROVE TH AT WHATEVER EXPLANATION GIVEN OR SUBMISSIONS MADE IN DEFENCE OF THE APPELLANT IS BONA FIDE AND ALSO FAIL ED TO PROVE THAT ALL THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SEIZED MAT ERIAL AND CONCEALED PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED TRULY IN THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME IN THE RETURNS ORIGINAL LY FILED. IT IS AMPLY CLEAR AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) PENALTY IS CLEARLY ATTRACTED IN THE CASE OF THE APP ELLANT AS THE INCOME BASED ON SEIZED MATERIAL OR ENTRIES MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS/OTHER DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO ANY PREVIOUS YEAR WHICH ENDED BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH , EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE DECLARES SUCH INCOME IN A RETU RN FIELD AFTER SEARCH, DEEMED T HAVE CONCEALED/FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IN THE APPELLANTS CASE, TH E ARGUMENT OF THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT TENABLE A S MERE OFFERING EXPLANAT ION IS NOT SUFFICIENT SUCH EXPLANATION HAS TO BE SUBSTAN TIATED BY COGENT AND RELIABLE EVIDENCE. THIS VIEW HAS BEE N HELD IN THE CASE OF LAL CHAND TARATH RAM VS CIT (PH) 225 ITR 675. PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED ON INCOME DISCLOSED/ADM ITTED AFTER DETECTION-WHERE THE OMISSION IS DELIBERATE TH E ASSESSEE CANNOT GET RID OF MERELY BY FILING A REVIS ED RETURN. REVISED RETURN FILED ONLY AFTER DEPARTMENT GOT INFORMATION WHICH WAS CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS 10 ITA NOS.307 & 308/MDS/2014 SITUATION ALSO PENALTY IS ATTRACTED NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE CORRECTED HIS RETURN AND WAS ACCE PTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THIS VIEW HAS BEEN HELD IN SEVE RAL CASE LAWS MENTIONED AS UNDER:- DAYABHAI GIRDHARABAI VS. CIT (BOM) 321 ITR 677 CIT VS. HAJI P.MOHAMMED (KER) 132 ITR 623 MAHAVIR METAL WORKS VS. CIT (P&H) 921 ITR 513 BADRI PRASAD OM PRAKASH VS. CIT (RAJ) 163 ITR 440 S.R.ARULPRAKASAM VS. PREMA MALINI VASAN, ITO (MAD) 163 IRS 487 F.C. AGARWAL VS. CIT (GAUHATI) 102 ITR 408 CIT VS. JKA SUBRAMANIA CHETTIAR (MAD) 110 ITR 602 RAVI & CO VS. ACIT(MAD) 271 ITR 286. 9. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRECEDEN TS AND CASE LAWS MENTIONED SUPRA THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S.271(1)(C) AT ` 1,68,290/- FOR THE A.Y. 1982-83 AND ` 2,33,800/- FOR THE A.Y. 1983-84 BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER IS HEREBY CONFIRMED REJECTING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FI LED BY THE APPELLANT. 8. ON GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND ALSO PENALTY ORDER, WE FIN D THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY PROPER/PLAUSIBLE EXPLANA TIONS AS TO WHY THERE IS NO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. IT WAS TH E FINDING OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THAT TH ERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN THE PARTNERS CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS A S PER THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND THE CAPITAL RETURNED IN THE RE TURN OF INCOME. THUS, THE INCREASE IN THE NET WEALTH ARE IN COME OUTSIDE BOOKS, THEREFORE THE SAID AMOUNT IS TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE NEVER GAVE 11 ITA NOS.307 & 308/MDS/2014 PROPER/PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION AS TO WHY THERE IS A DIFFERENCE AS PER THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND THE CAPITAL DISCLOS ED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND WHY THE SAID INCOME SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THUS, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF T HE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN HOLDING THA T THERE IS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY LEVIED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF T HE ACT FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 9. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON FRIDAY, THE 28 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2014 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( ( *+ ) ( A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ( CHALLA NAGENDR A PRASAD ) - / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER * - / JUDICIAL MEMBER * /CHENNAI, / /DATED 28 TH NOVEMBER, 2014 SOMU 12 32 /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. 4 () /CIT(A) 4. 4 /CIT 5. 2 7 /DR 6. /GF .