S.Muthukaruppan, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 358/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2632 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 26-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 14-02-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A B KOLI
• Assessee Lawyers: G BASKAR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Gift; Peak credit

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !'# ! , % !& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NOS.358, 359 & 2698/MDS/2014 & I.T.A. NO.1939/MDS/2015 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2003-04, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 200 5-06 SHRI S. MUTHUKARUPPAN, NO.6, RANJITH ROAD, KOTTURPURAM, CHENNAI - 600 085. PAN : AADPM 1578 N V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX / THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE IV(3), CHENNAI - 600 034. (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) +, / 0 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI G. BASKAR, ADVOCATE -.+, / 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SH. A.B. KOLI, JCIT 1 / 2% / DATE OF HEARING : 26.11.2015 3') / 2% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.01.2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : ALL THE FOUR APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTE D AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)( C) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEARS 2003-04, 2006-07, 2007-08 AND 2005-06. SINCE COMMON ISSUE A RISES FOR 2 I.T.A. NOS.358, 359 & 2698/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO.1959/MDS/15 CONSIDERATION IN THESE APPEALS, WE HEARD THESE APPE ALS TOGETHER AND DISPOSING OF THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. SHRI G. BASKAR, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS SEARCH OPERATION IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 05.02.2007. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, THE A SSESSING OFFICER FOUND A DEPOSIT OF ` 15,01,000/- IN INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, THIRUVANMIYUR BRANCH. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFOR E THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE DEPOSITS WERE RECEIVED F ROM VARIOUS CUSTOMERS THROUGH CLEARING CHEQUES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE EXPLANATION AND MADE AN ADDITION OF ` 15,01,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERA TION. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF ` 5 LAKHS AS AGAINST UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT OF ` 15,01,000/-. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINING ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THEREFORE, ONE OF THE METHODS TO DETERMINE THE TAXABLE INCOME IS TO ADD THE PEAK CREDIT AND THE NET PROFIT . THE PEAK CREDIT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS ` 4,37,907/- AS ON 07.12.2002. THE NET PROFIT TILL THAT DATE MAY BE TELESCOPED AND THE ASS ESSEE TELESCOPED THE AGGREGATE CREDITS AND SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSE SSING OFFICER THAT A ROUND SUM OF ` 5,30,000/- COULD BE SUSTAINED OUT OF 3 I.T.A. NOS.358, 359 & 2698/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO.1959/MDS/15 ` 15,01,000/-. TAKING THE SUBMISSION AS ADMISSION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT A SU M OF ` 5,30,000/- WAS CONCEALED AND ACCORDINGLY LEVIED PENALTY OF ` 1,39,650/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE , THE CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE REQUESTE D THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ESTIMATE THE PEAK CREDIT AND N ET PROFIT AND THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THERE WAS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE CIT(APPEALS) OUGH T TO HAVE DELETED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SH. A.B. KOLI, THE LD. DEPARTME NTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE ADMITTE D AN ADDITION OF ` 5,30,000/- DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NG. THE ADMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS BECAUSE OF THE M ATERIAL FOUND BY THE DEPARTMENT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. THE DEPOSIT OF ` 15,01,000/- WAS FOUND BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, WHEREAS, THE ASSESSEE HAS RETURNED ONLY ` 2,84,000/-. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SO URCE FOR MAKING THE DEPOSIT OF ` 15,01,000/-. THEREFORE, THE AUTHORITIES ARE VERY LENIENT AND ADMITTED THE PEAK CREDIT AND NET PROFIT TO THE EXTENT OF 4 I.T.A. NOS.358, 359 & 2698/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO.1959/MDS/15 ` 5,30,000/- AND LEVIED MINIMUM PENALTY OF ` 1,39,650/-. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIG HTLY CONFIRMED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOUND DEPOSIT OF ` 15,01,000/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FI LE ANY SOURCE OF INCOME OR RECEIPT FOR MAKING THE DEPOSIT. THE ASSE SSEE SIMPLY CLAIMED THAT THE DEPOSITS WERE RECEIVED FROM VARIOU S CUSTOMERS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE ANY CONFIRMATI ON OR MATERIAL TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM. SINCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE NOT MAINTAINED, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUGGESTED TO TAKE PEAK CREDIT AND NET PROFIT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF ESTIMATE D THE PROFIT AT ` 5,30,000/- OUT OF THE DEPOSIT OF ` 15,01,000/- FOUND IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO T DISCLOSED THE INCOME IN THE COURSE OF REGULAR RETURN. THE ASSESS EE ALSO COULD NOT FURNISH ANY MATERIAL TO SUBSTANTIATE THE DEPOSIT OF ` 15,01,000/-. INSPITE OF THAT, THE DEPARTMENT WAS VERY LENIENT TO TAKE THE INCOME AT ` 5,30,000/-. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT OFFER ANY EXPLANATION FOR NOT FURNISHING THE CORRECT INFORMATION WITH REG ARD TO INCOME, THIS 5 I.T.A. NOS.358, 359 & 2698/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO.1959/MDS/15 TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY LEVIED THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 5. NOW COMING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, SHRI G. B ASKAR, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS INTERCEPTED AT CHENNAI AIRPORT ON 05.02.2007 WITH A CASH OF ` 24.85 LAKHS IN HIS POSSESSION. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BE FORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THE CASH FOUND AT THE AIRPORT WAS HIS COMMISSION AND INCOME FROM REAL ESTATE AND SHRIMP SEEDS. THE LD.COUNSEL FURTHER CLARIFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAIN ING ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE LD.COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADVANCED A SUM OF ` 10 LAKHS TO ONE SHRI RAMAMURTHY AND HIS FAMILY FOR PURCHASE OF LAND. THE LD.COUNSEL FURTHE R CLARIFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ` 10 LAKHS FROM SHRI R. SRINIVASAN AND SHRI JOSEPH, OUT OF WHICH, A SUM OF ` 6,50,000/- WAS PART OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM SHRI R. SRINIVASAN AND SHRI JOSEPH. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LEVYING PENAL TY. 6. ON THE CONTRARY, SH. A.B. KOLI, THE LD. DEPARTME NTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT ADMITTEDLY, A SUM OF ` 24.85 LAKHS WAS FOUND IN THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE AT CHEN NAI AIRPORT. 6 I.T.A. NOS.358, 359 & 2698/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO.1959/MDS/15 THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONTESTED THE ADDITION MADE TO THE EXTENT OF ` 24.85 LAKHS. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS) IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING AGAINST THE QUANTUM ADDITI ON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ` 10 LAKHS FROM SHRI R. SRINIVASAN AND SHRI JOSEPH. ON ENQUIRY BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, THE SAID SHRI R. SRINIVASAN DENIED THAT HE HAS ADVANCED ANY MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE. INSPITE OF THIS DENIAL BY SHRI R. SRINIV ASAN, THE CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE FOR MAKING DEPOSIT TO THE EXTENT OF ` 5,50,000/-. ACCORDINGLY, WHAT WAS SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) IS ` 1 LAKH AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO LEVY PENALTY ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF ` 1 LAKH, THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLE D FOR. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADVANCED A SUM OF ` 10 LAKHS TO ONE SHRI RAMAMURTHY AND HIS FAMILY FOR PUR CHASE OF LANDED PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER THAT HE BORROWED A SUM OF ` 10 LAKHS FROM SHRI R. SRINIVASAN AND SHRI JOSEPH. HOWEVER, THE SAID SHRI R. SRINIVASAN DENIE D THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS 7 I.T.A. NOS.358, 359 & 2698/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO.1959/MDS/15 EXPLAINED THE ADVANCE TO THE EXTENT OF ` 6,50,000/- AND ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF ` 6,50,000/-. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSEE APPEAR ED TO HAVE FILED A CONFIRMATION LETTER DATED 9.2.2011 FROM SHR I R. SRINIVASAN WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT AN AMOUNT OF ` 5,50,000/- HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AS ADVANCE FOR PURCHASE OF AGRICULT URAL LAND AT NATTERI. THE CIT(APPEALS), BY TAKING INTO CONSIDER ATION OF THIS AMOUNT OF ` 5,50,000/-, FOUND THAT THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FO R LEVY OF PENALTY TO THE EXTENT OF ` 5,50,000/-. ACCORDINGLY, THE CIT(APPEALS) SUSTAINED THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF ` 1 LAKH AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO LEVY PENALTY ONLY ON THAT AMOUNT OF ` 1 LAKH. THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE ADVANCE TO THE E XTENT OF ` 10 LAKHS TO SHRI RAMAMURTHY AND HIS FAMILY FOR PURCHAS E OF A LAND. THE ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE FOR MAK ING ADVANCE OF ` 9 LAKHS AND THE BALANCE OF ` 1 LAKH COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED. THEREFORE, TO THAT EXTENT THERE WAS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPI NION THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY RESTRICTED THE PENALTY TO ` 1 LAKH. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE 8 I.T.A. NOS.358, 359 & 2698/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO.1959/MDS/15 ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORD ER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) IS CONFIRMED. 8. NOW COMING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, SHRI G. B ASKAR, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT DUR ING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES SEIZED A SUM OF ` 24,85,000/-. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, AN ADDITION OF ` 5,13,000/- WAS MADE TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. ON APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSE E, THE CIT(APPEALS) REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF ` 5,13,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. DURING T HE PENALTY PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THE SOURCE WAS FROM THE GIFT RECEI VED BY THE ASSESSEES WIFE ON THE OCCASION OF HER MARRIAGE AND OTHER OCCASIONS FROM TIME TO TIME. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CLAIMED THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, SOME OF THE DEP OSITS MADE WITH BANK WERE IN THE JOINT ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE . THE LOWER AUTHORITIES DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AN D FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE RETURNED INCOME OF ONLY ` 17,604/- BEFORE THE SEARCH. HOWEVER, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF ` 5,13,000/- TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF ` 17,604/-. 9 I.T.A. NOS.358, 359 & 2698/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO.1959/MDS/15 THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR NOT DISCLOSING THE AMOUNT IN THE REGULAR RETURN. THEREFORE, THE ASSES SING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY ON THE AMOUNT OF ` 5,13,000/-. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEES WIFE RECEIVED A GIFT. THE FIXED DEPOSIT MATURED WAS CREDITED IN THE JOINT ACCOUNT OF THE AS SESSEE AND HIS WIFE. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 9. ON THE CONTRARY, SH. A.B. KOLI, THE LD. DEPARTME NTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, AN ADDITION OF ` 5,13,000/- WAS MADE AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN TH E IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT IT WAS THE GIFT RECEIVED BY HIS WIFE DURING HER MARRIAGE AND ON VAR IOUS OCCASIONS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE THE DETAILS OF THE GIFT RECEIVED AND THE DETAILS OF THE FIXED DEPOSIT SAID TO BE MAT URED. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH DETAILS, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. A SUM OF ` 5,13,000/- WAS CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES T HAT IT WAS THE 10 I.T.A. NOS.358, 359 & 2698/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO.1959/MDS/15 MATURITY OF DEPOSIT THAT WAS CREDITED. HOWEVER, TH E DETAILS OF THE FIXED DEPOSIT, WHICH WAS SAID TO BE CREDITED IN THE JOINT ACCOUNT ON MATURITY, WERE NOT FURNISHED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHO RITIES. EVEN BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL, NO SUCH DETAILS WERE FURNISHE D. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT KNOWN WHETHER THE FIXED DEPOSIT ON MATURITY WAS CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OR FROM SOME OTHER SOURCE. IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CREDIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY LEVIED P ENALTY. 11. NOW COMING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, SHRI G. BASKAR, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, MADE AN ADDITION OF ` 3 LAKHS AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE LAND AND ANO THER SUM OF ` 3,65,148/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE ASSESSEE EXP LAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT MISCELLANEOUS INCOME OF ` 3 LAKHS WAS INVESTED IN THE LAND. THIS WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. COMING TO THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF ` 3,65,148/-, THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE RECEIPT OF MATURED AMOUNT OF FIXED DEPOSIT IN THE ASSESSEES W IFES NAME WAS CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. DUE TO LONG GAP, THE DETAILS OF THE FIXED DEPOSIT COULD NOT BE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. 11 I.T.A. NOS.358, 359 & 2698/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO.1959/MDS/15 HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE. WITH REGARD TO UNEXPLAINED CREDIT OF ` 1,42,286/-, THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE PENAL TY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE C OULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL , THE DETAILS OF CREDITS ARE AVAILABLE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LEVYING PENAL TY. 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE PENALTY WAS LEVIED ON THREE COUNTS. UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN LAND TO THE EXTENT OF ` 3 LAKHS, UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF ` 3,65,148/- AND UNEXPLAINED CREDIT OF ` 1,42,282/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO LEVIED PENALTY WITH REGARD TO CLAIM OF RECEIPT OF G IFT FROM WIFE TO THE EXTENT OF ` 2 LAKHS. 13. COMING TO UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE LAND, T HE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT FROM MISCELLANEOUS INCOME, THE INVESTM ENT WAS MADE. HOWEVER, SUCH MISCELLANEOUS INCOME WAS NOT DISCLOSE D IN THE RETURN FILED IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF INCOME. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE MISCELLANEOUS INCOME IN THE R EGULAR COURSE OF FILING OF INCOME, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERE D OPINION THAT AT THIS 12 I.T.A. NOS.358, 359 & 2698/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO.1959/MDS/15 STAGE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CLAIM THAT THE MISCELLAN EOUS INCOME WAS USED IN MAKING THE INVESTMENT OF ` 3 LAKHS. THEREFORE, TO THIS EXTENT, THERE WAS CONCEALMENT ON THE PART OF THE AS SESSEE. 14. NOW, COMING TO UNDISCLOSED INCOME, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THERE WAS CREDIT OF FIXED DEPOSIT IN THE ASSESSEES WIFES NAME TO THE EXTENT OF ` 3,65,148/-. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDING, THE CIT( APPEALS) GRANTED RELIEF TO THE EXTENT OF ` 2, 709/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME ADMITTED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 WAS TO BE TELESCOPED. ACCORDINGLY, WHAT WAS FOUND TO B E UNDISCLOSED INCOME ULTIMATELY IS ` 93,439/-. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE DEPOSIT OF ` 93,439/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, THIS TRIB UNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE WAS CONCEALMEN T TO THAT EXTENT. 15. NOW COMING TO THE GIFT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE S WIFE TO THE EXTENT OF ` 2 LAKHS. IT IS A CUSTOMARY PRACTICE TO RECEIVE GIF T DURING THE COURSE OF MARRIAGE AND OTHER FESTIVAL OCCASIONS . IT IS ALSO A CUSTOMARY PRACTICE TO RECEIVE GIFTS FROM PARENTS DU RING THE TIME OF MARRIAGE ANNIVERSARY AND BIRTHDAY. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE REC EIVED TO THE 13 I.T.A. NOS.358, 359 & 2698/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO.1959/MDS/15 EXTENT OF ` 2 LAKHS WHICH CANNOT BE DOUBTED BY THE LOWER AUTHOR ITIES. IN FACT, THE CIT(APPEALS) ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF ` 1 LAKH AND THE BALANCE OF ` 1 LAKH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(APPEALS). THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED O PINION THAT THE ASSESSEES WIFE MIGHT HAVE RECEIVED ` 2 LAKHS. HENCE, THE LEVY OF PENALTY IS NOT JUSTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND THE PENALTY LEVIED ON THE GIFT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEES WIFE TO THE EXTENT OF ` 2 LAKHS IS DELETED. 16. NOW COMING TO UNEXPLAINED CREDIT OF ` 1,42,286/-, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE DETAILS OF CREDIT EITHER BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES OR BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. IN THE ABSENC E OF DETAILS OF CREDIT, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY LEVIED PENALTY. THEREFORE , THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS). ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 17. IN THE RESULT, I.T.A. NOS.358, 359 AND 2698/MDS /2014 ARE DISMISSED, HOWEVER, I.T.A. NO.1939/MDS/2015 IS PART LY ALLOWED. 14 I.T.A. NOS.358, 359 & 2698/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO.1959/MDS/15 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 14 TH JANUARY, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !'# ! ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 14 TH JANUARY, 2016. KRI. / -267 87)2 /COPY TO: 1. +, /APPELLANT 2. -.+, /RESPONDENT 3. 1 92 () /CIT(A) (CENTRAL-I), CHENNAI 4. 1 92 () /CIT(A)-18, CHENNAI 5. 1 92 /CIT, CENTRAL-I, CHENNAI 6. 7: -2 /DR 7. ;( < /GF.