M/s. M.D. Mohta, Kolkata V. DCIT, CC-XII, Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 617/KOL/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 83027 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 3 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2008
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: IMLIMEREN JAMIR LD JCITSR
• Keywords: Document seized; Revised return; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3); 5(2); 153A

Judgement Text

ITA NOS.617 TO 621/KOL/08- M/S. M.D. MOHTA PB 1 , A IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, A BENCH: KO LKATA ( ) , 1 , BEFORE HONBLE SRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM & HONBLE SRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM $ / ITA NOS. 617 TO 621/KOL/2008 A.YS 1999-2000 TO 2003-2004 M/S. M.D. MOHTA PAN: AAEFM 4026E - - - VERSUS - . D.C.I.T, CC-XII, KOLKATA ( % / APPELLANT ) ( &'% / RESPONDENT ) FOR THE APPELLANT NONE APPEARED (EXPARTE) FOR THE RESPONDENT / SHRI IMLIMEREN JAMIR, LD. JCIT/SR.DR * + /DATE OF HEARING: 07-08-2014 * + /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 07-08-2014 / ORDER PER BENCH THESE FIVE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), CENTR AL II, KOLKATA ALL DATED 13.03.2008 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000 TO 2003-04 RESP ECTIVELY, WHERE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS PARTLY CONFIRMED THE PE NALTIES LEVIED BY THE AO U/S. 271(1)( C) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961. SINCE THE ISSUES ARE SIMIL AR, THESE ARE BEING CONSOLIDATED AND DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. . 2. WE NOTE THAT EARLIER THESE FIVE APPEALS WERE DISPOSED OF BY THIS TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 08-08-2008. BY WAY OF THIS ORDER THESE FIVE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE DISMISSED. 3. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED APPEAL FOR RECALLING OF THE ABOVE SAID EX-PARTE ORDER. AS THE ABOVE APPEALS WERE DISMISSED WITHOUT THE ASSESSEE BEING PRESENT ON THE DATE OF HEARING IN MISC. APPLICATION NOS. 151 TO 155/KOL /08 VIDE ORDER DATED 14-01-2011, THE EX-PARTE ORDER DATED 08-08-2008 WAS RECALLED TO ENA BLE THE ASSESSEE TO PRESENT ITS CASE. SUBSEQUENT TO THE ABOVE RECALLED ORDER, THIS CASE W AS FIXED ON SEVERAL DATES IN THE YEARS ITA NOS.617 TO 621/KOL/08- M/S. M.D. MOHTA PB 2 2012, 2013 AND 2014, BUT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. TODAY WHEN THESE APPEALS WERE CALLED, NONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. NO REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS ALSO MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE . IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOTHING T O SUBMIT IN THIS REGARD. 4. WE HAVE HARD THE LD. DR. UPON HEARING THE LD.DR S AND PERUSING THE RECORDS, WE NOTE THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORIGINAL ORDER DATED 08-08-2008 HAS ELABORATELY DEALT WITH THE MATTER. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, WE FIND THAT FI NDINGS OF TRIBUNAL ARE ON FIRM FOOTING. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ALSO COME TO THE SAME FIND INGS. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 617/KOL/2008 3. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AGAINST THE ORDER DAT ED 13-3-2008 OF THE LD.CIT(A). AS PER IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD.CIT(A) PAR TLY CONFIRMED THE PENALTY OF RS.1,23,792/- LEVIED BY THE AO BEING 150 % OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED ON THE CONCEALED INCOME OF RS.2,75,093/- . LD. CIT(A) REDUCED THE PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(1) ( C) OF THE ACT TO 100% OF THE TAX EVADED, WHICH HAS BEEN WORKED OUT BY THE AO AT RS.82,528/-. THUS , THE LD. CIT(A) HAS REDUCED PENALTY OF RS.1,23,792/- LEVIED U/S. 271(1) ( C) TO RS.82,528/- AND PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS E NGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF RAKHEES UNDER THE TRA DE NAME OF SHREE RAKHEE. 5. A SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED AT THE RESIDENCE AND BUS INESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE GROUP ON 2-9-2004 AND CASH, JEWELLERY AND OTHER ASSETS ALONG WITH INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED DURING T HE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000 TO 2004-05 IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED AND SERVED U/S. 153A OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, RS.5,70,900/- IN CASH WAS FOUND F ROM THE OFFICE OUT OF WHICH RS.5,50,000/- WERE SEIZED. THE STOCK OF RAKH IES AND OTHER MATERIALS WAS INVENTERISED AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, LOOSE DOC UMENTS AS PER PANCHANAMA DATED 2-9-2004 WERE ALSO SEIZED. THE A SSESSEE HAD FILED ORIGINAL RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 ON 31 -12-1999 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME RS.37,340/-. THE REVISED RETURN WAS F ILED ON 3-10-2005 U/S. 153A AT A TOTAL INCOME RS3,13,240/-. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, 44 UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNTS WERE DISCOVERED IN THE N AME OF VARIOUS FAMILY MEMBERS AND CONCEALED INCOME OF RS.2,75,093/- FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR UNDER ITA NOS.617 TO 621/KOL/08- M/S. M.D. MOHTA PB 3 CONSIDERATION ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED CREDITS/D EPOSITS AND INTEREST WAS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE INCOME OF RS.2,75,09 3/- WAS DECLARED IN THE STATEMENT U/S. 132(4) OF THE ACT AND INCLUDED IN TH E INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S. 158A OF THE ACT. THE AO FINALIZED THE ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 AS PER ORD ER U/S. 153A/143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 21-12-2006 AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS .3,13,240/- AND ALSO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDING U/S. 271(1)( C) OF THE ACT. 6. DURING THE COURSE OF PENALTY PROCEEDING THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE INCOME OF RS.2,75,093/- DECLARED IN THE REVISED RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S. 153 A OF THE ACT, HAD ALREADY BEEN DECLARED BY IT IN THE STATEMENT U/S. 132(4) RE CORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND THE PENALTY WAS NOT LEVIABLE IN VIEW OF CLAUSE (2) OF EXPLANATION 5 TO SECTION 271(1)( C) OF THE ACT, BEC AUSE PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT COULD NOT BE LEVIED ON THE INCOME DISC LOSED IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S. 132(4) OF THE ACT. IF THE ASSESSEE H AD PAID THE TAX ALONG WITH INTEREST IN RESPECT OF SUCH INCOME. IT WAS ALSO CL AIMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FULFILLED ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF EXPLANATION 5 TO SEC. 271(1)( C) AND THE PENALTY WAS, THEREFORE, NOT LEVIABLE IN VIEW OF TH E FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- 1. CIT VS. CHHABRA EMPORIUM 264 ITR 249(DELHI) 2. GEBILAL KANHAILAL (HUF) VS. ACIT 270 ITR 523 (RAJAS THAN) 3. CIT VS. S.D.V CHANDRA 266 ITR 175 (MADRAS) 4. CIT VS. E.V BALASHAN MUGHAM 286 ITR 626 (MADRAS) 5. JAINARAYAN MOOLCHAND AGARWAL (DEED) THROUGH L/R VS. ACIT 104 TTJ 854. THE AO, HOWEVER, OBSERVED THAT THE UNDISCLOSED INCO ME OF RS.2,75,091/- DISCUSSED ABOVE WAS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE CONCEALMENT WAS ADMITTED IN THE STATEMENT U/S. 132(4) OF THE ACT AS ALSO IN THE RELEVANT RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S. 153A OF THE ACT. THE AO ALSO OBSERVED THAT BUT FOR THE SEARCH THE DOCUMENTS, BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER SUCH EVIDENCE WHICH HAD RESULTED IN THE DISCOVERY OF THE UNRECORDED BUSINESS TRANSACTIO NS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT AND ONLY AFTER THE DISCOVERY BY THE DEPARTMENT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE CONCEALED INCOME AND THE DISCLOSURE WAS, THEREFORE, NOT VOLUNTARY. HE, THER EFORE, HELD THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT PENALTY WAS NOT LEVIABLE AS P ER PROVISION OF CLAUSE 2 OF EXPLANATION TO SEC. 271(1( C)(5) OF THE ACT, WAS NO T CORRECT. THE AO WAS SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INITIALLY CONCEALED THE INCOME DISCUSSED ABOVE AND THE DISCLOSURE WAS NOT VOLUNTARY. THE A O HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS GUILTY OF WILLFUL AND DELIBERATE EVASION OF TAX AND IN VIEW OF MENSREA HAVING BEEN CLEARLY ESTABLISHED BY HIM AS PER DISC USSION IN THE PENALTY ITA NOS.617 TO 621/KOL/08- M/S. M.D. MOHTA PB 4 ORDER U/S. 271(1)( C) DATED 29-6-2007, HE CONSIDERE D IT A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)( C) OF THE ACT. THE TAX ON CONC EALED INCOME OF RS.2,75,093/- WAS ACCORDINGLY WORKED OUT AT RS.82,5 28/- AND 150% PENALTY THEREOF BEING RS.1,23,792/- WAS LEVIED AS PER PROVI SION OF SEC. 271(1)( C) OF THE ACT. 7. LD.CIT(A) PARTLY CONFIRMED THE PENALTY U/S.271(1 )( C) OF THE ACT AND HELD THAT CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED U/S. 271(1)( C) EX PLANATION 5(2) ARE NOT FULFILLED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE PENAL TY WAS LEVIABLE. HE, HOWEVER, REDUCED THE PENALTY TO THE MINIMUM PENALTY OF 100% OF TAX. THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR HIS DECISION ON ANALYSIS OF PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 5 TO SEC. 271(1)( C), ARE AS UNDER:- (1) THE ORIGINAL RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-20 00 I.E ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 3 1-12-1999 AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.37,400/- AND REVISED RETURN WAS FILED ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3,13,240/- ON 3-10-2005 IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/ S. 153A OF THE ACT. THUS, THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR HAD ENDED BEFORE T HE DATE OF SEARCH I.E. 2- 9-2004, AND THE ORIGINAL RETURN HAD ALREADY BEEN F ILED. (2) THE CONCEALED INCOME WAS DISCLOSED U/S. 132(4) OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF THE TRANSACTIONS RECORDED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMEN TS BUT THE SAME WERE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE INCOME DISCLOSED WAS NOT ON ACCOUNT OF MONEY, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLES OR THINGS. (3) NEITHER THE CONCEALED INCOME NOR THE TRANSACTIO NS RESULTING IN SUCH INCOME WERE RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTA INED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH NOR THE SAME WERE DISCLO SED TO THE CHIEF COMMISSION/COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BEFORE THE DA TE OF SEARCH. THUS, THE EXCEPTION CLAUSES OF EXPLANATION 5 WERE NOT ATT RACTED TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE PENALTY WAS LEVIABLE U /S. 271(1)( C) OF THE ACT. 8. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED WITH FORM NO.36, THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS TAKEN BEFORE THE LOWER A UTHORITIES. 9. LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORI TIES. 10. IN ADDITION TO THE DECISIONS CITED BEFORE THE L D.CIT(A) AND CONSIDERED BY HIM AT PARA 3 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER, THE ASSESSEE AS PER GROUND NO.3(B) ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MISHRIMAL SONI 289 ITR 77 (RAJ), CIT VS. KANHAILAL 299 ITR 19(RAJ) ITA NOS.617 TO 621/KOL/08- M/S. M.D. MOHTA PB 5 11. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ISSUE IN VIEW OF THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD, RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE CASE LA WS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IN THE CASES OF KANHAILAL (SUPRA), S D V CHANDRA (SUPRA) AND MISHRIMAL SONI C ITED BY THE LD. COUNSEL, UNEXPLAINED ASSETS WERE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND THE INCOME DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THEIR RESPECTIV E STATEMENTS U/S. 132(4) OF THE ACT, RELATED TO THE UNDISCLOSED ASSETS. WHE REAS IN THE PRESENT CASE THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THE INC OME WAS DISCLOSED ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSACTIONS RECORDED IN THE SEIZED DOCU MENTS, THE UNDISCLOSED CREDITS/DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND THE UNDISC LOSED INTEREST INCOME NOT RECORDED IN THE RELEVANT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE A SSESSEE, COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE BE FORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THUS, WITH DUE RESPECT, THE RATIO OF T HE AFORESAID DECISIONS DOES NOT APPLY TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CASE OF CHHABRA EMPORIUM (SUPRA), THE DISCLOSURE RELATED TO UNEXPLAINED STO CKS AND NOT TO THE TRANSACTIONS IN UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNTS NOT UN R ECORDED IN THE RELEVANT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE DECISION IN THAT CASE IS A LSO NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE STOCK CAN BE CONSI DERED AS AN ASSETS IN THE FORM OF VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING AS PER THE PROVIS IONS OF EXPLANATION 5 TO SEC. 271(1)( C) OF THE ACT, WHEREAS THE TRANSACTION S IN THE UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNTS AND SEIZED DOCUMENTS NOT RECORDED IN THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNT, CANNOT BE CONSIDERED UNDISCLOSED ASSETS I.E MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLES OR THINGS AS PER EXPLANATIO N 5 TO SEC. 271(1) ( C) OF THE ACT. IN THE CASE OF GABILAL KANHAILAL (HUF) (S UPRA), HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE PENALTY U/S. 271(1) ( C) WAS NOT LEVIABLE IN VIEW OF EXPLANATION 5 THEREOF FOR DISCLOSURE MADE IN THE S TATEMENT U/S. 132(4) OF THE ACT IN RESPONSE OF THE INVESTMENTS MADE IN PA WING BUSINESS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1987-88 AND 1988-89. BESIDES, SEAR CH IN THAT CASE WAS CONDUCTED ON 1-8-1987 AND, THEREFORE, THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1987-88 HAD NOT EXPIRED AND PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1988-89 HAD ALSO EXPIRE D BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH, WHEREAS IN THE CASE BEFORE US THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 HAD ALREADY EX PIRED AND THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME HAD ALSO BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSE E. AS STATED EARLIER, THE DISCLOSURE WAS IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENTS MADE IN PA WING BUSINESS AND RELATED TO THE PAWNED ORNAMENTS, WHICH ARE ASSETS A S PER EXPLANATION 5 TO SEC. 271(1)( C) OF THE ACT, WHEREAS DISCLOSURE IN T HE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS IN RESPECT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME ARISING OUT OF TRANSACTIONS IN THE UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNTS AND INTEREST THEREON AND THE OTHER SEIZED DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE NOT RECORDED IN THE RELEVANT B OOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, WITH DUE RESPECT, IT IS CLEAR FROM THE AFORESAID DECISIONS THAT THE IMMUNITY FROM PENALTY U/S. 271(1) ( C) WAS AVAILABLE AS PER EXPLANATION 5 TO SEC. 271(1) ( C), ONLY IF THE DISC LOSURE WAS MADE U/S. ITA NOS.617 TO 621/KOL/08- M/S. M.D. MOHTA PB 6 132(4) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF CONCEALED ASSETS A ND FOR THE YEARS FOR WHICH EITHER THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN HAD NOT E NDED BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH OR THE ORIGINAL RETURN HAD NOT BEEN FILED OR THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR ENDED ON OR AFTER THE DATE OF SEARCH. THE VIEW OF T HE LD.CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FULFILL THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN THE RELEVANT CLAUSES OF EXPLANATION 5 TO SEC. 271(1) ( C) AND WAS NOT ELIGI BLE FOR IMMUNITY FROM LEVY OF CONCEALMENT OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)( C) IS, THEREFORE, CONSIDERED CORRECT. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO FAIRLY REDUCED TH E PENALTY TO 100% OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED AND CONFIRMED ONLY THE MINI MUM PENALTY LEVIABLE U/S. 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT. WE, THEREFORE, SEE NO R EASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). 12. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMI SSED. ITA NO.618/KOL/2008 13. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DAT ED 13-3-2008. THE LD. CIT(A) AS PER IMPUGNED ORDER PEN ALTY CONFIRMED THE PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT, LEVIED BY THE A O AS PER ORDER DATED 29-6- 2007 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. 14. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE DISC USSED ABOVE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 IN ITA NO. 617/KOL/2008 I N THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN SHORT, THE ASSESSEE FILED ORIGINAL RET URN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 ON 7-3-2001 DECLARING INCO ME OF RS. 39,480/-. THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED CONCEALED INCOME OF RS.53,31, 721/- IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED U/S. 132(4) OF THE ACT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OF HIS PREMISES ON 2-9-2004, WHICH INCLUDED CONCEALED INCOME OF RS. 5,96,700/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED C REDITS/DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT AND INTEREST OF RS.3,96,700/- AND UNEX PLAINED CASH LOAN OF RS. 2 LAKH. THE ASSESSEE FILED A REVISED RETURN DECLARI NG INCOME OF RS.6,36,180/- ON 30-10-2005, IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 153A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AS PER ORDER DAT ED 27-12-2006 U/S. 143(3) READ WITH SEC. 153A OF THE ACT AS PER ORDER DATED 21-12-2006 AND INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETURN FILED U/S. 153A OF TH E ACT WAS ACCEPTED. THE AO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDING U/S. 271(1) ( C) O F THE ACT AND LEVIED THE PENALTY OF RS.2,68,515/- BEING 150% OF RS.1,79,010/ - I.E TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED ON THE CONCEALED INCOME OF RS. 5,96,700/-. THE LD. CIT(A) AS PER THE IMPUGNED ORDER REDUCED THE PENALTY TO THE MINIM UM PENALTY U/S. 271(1)( C) I.E RS. 1,79,010/-, AND PARTLY ALLOWED T HE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES FOR LEVY AND PART CONFIRMATION OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1) ( C) AS ALSO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE THE SAME AS IN ITA NO.617/KOL/2008. FOR REASONS DISCUSS ED IN OUR ABOVE ORDER ITA NOS.617 TO 621/KOL/08- M/S. M.D. MOHTA PB 7 IN ITA NO. 617/KOL/2008 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-20 00 IN THE FOREGOING PORTION OF THIS ORDER, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPI NION THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE. THE A PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. ITA NO.619/KOL/2008 15. THE ORIGINAL RETURN WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE O N 31-10-2001, DECLARING INCOME OF RS.68,280/-. AS A RESULT OF SEA RCH THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OF RS.4,16,890/- WHICH CONSIS TED OF CONCEALED INCOME OF RS.2,16,890/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED T RANSACTIONS AND THE INTEREST IN VARIOUS UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNTS, DET AILS OF WHICH WERE GIVEN IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT ORDER AND PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AND RS. 2 LAKH ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH LOANS. TH E CONCEALED INCOME WAS DECLARED IN THE RETURN FILED U/S. 153A OF THE ACT ON 3-10-2005 AT RS. 4,85,180/-. THE AO LEVIED PENALTY OF RS.1,87,602/- AS PER ORDER U/S. 271(1) ( C) DATED 29-6-2007 BEING 150% OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED. THE LD. CIT(A) AS PER HIS IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13-3-2008 R EDUCED THE PENALTY U/S. 271(1) ( C).TO RS.1,25,068/- I.E. THE MINIMUM PENALTY BEING 100% OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED ON THE ADMITTED CONCEAL ED INCOME OF RS..4,16,890/- 16. THE FACTS OF THIS APPEAL, ORDERS OF THE LOWER A UTHORITIES, GROUNDS OF APPEAL, RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE MATERIAL PLACED O N RECORD ARE SIMILAR TO THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999 -2000 IN ITA NO. 617/KOL/2008 DECIDED AS PER DISCUSSION ABOVE. 17. FOLLOWING THE REASONING GIVEN IN OUR ORDER DECI DING THE AFORETASTED APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000, WE DISMISS T HIS APPEAL. ITA NO.620/KOL/2008 18. ORIGINAL RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 28-1-2003 AT AN INCOME OF RS.37,892/-. IN PURSUANCE OF SEARCH, THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED CONCEALED INCOME OF RS.79,018 /- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSACTIONS IN 44 UNDISCLOSE D BANK ACCOUNTS DISCOVERED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN THE NAMES OF VARIOUS FAMILY MEMBERS, THE DETAILS OF WHICH HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY TH E AO IN HIS RELEVANT ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE IMPUGNED PENALTY ORDER DAT ED 29-6-2007. THE ADMITTED CONCEALED INCOME WAS DISCLOSED IN THE RET URN OF INCOME FILED ON 3-10-2005 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,16,910/-. THE AO LEVIED PENALTY OF RS. 35,558/- BEING 150% OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED ON THE ADMITTED CONCEALED INCOME OF RS.79,018/-, WHICH WAS REDUCED TO MINIMUM ITA NOS.617 TO 621/KOL/08- M/S. M.D. MOHTA PB 8 CONCEALMENT PENALTY OF RS.23,705/- BY THE LD. CIT( A) AS PER HIS ORDER DATED 3-10-2005. 19. THE FACTS OF THIS APPEAL, ORDERS OF THE LOWER A UTHORITIES, GROUNDS OF APPEAL, RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE MATERIAL PLACED O N RECORD ARE SIMILAR TO THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999 -2000 IN ITA NO. 617/KOL/2008 DECIDED AS PER DISCUSSION ABOVE. 20. FOLLOWING THE REASONING GIVEN IN OUR ORDER DECI DING THE AFORETASTED APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000, WE DISMISS T HIS APPEAL. ITA NO. 621/KOL/2008 21. ORIGINAL RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 WA S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 15-12-2003 AT AN INCOME OF RS.45,135/- . IN PURSUANCE OF SEARCH, THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED CONCEALED INCOME OF RS. 1,55,440/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 CONSISTING OF RS.1,15,440/ - AND RS.49,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSACTIONS IN 44 UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCO UNTS DISCOVERED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN THE NAMES OF VARIOUS FAMILY MEMBERS, AND RS.40,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INTEREST OF NSCS. THE DETAILS OF WHICH HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE AO IN HIS RELEVANT ASS ESSMENT ORDER AND THE IMPUGNED PENALTY ORDER DATED 29-6-2007. THE ADMITT ED CONCEALED INCOME WAS DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 3-10 -2005 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.4,81,250/-. THE AO LEVIED PENALTY OF R S. 69,942/- BEING 150% OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED ON THE ADMITTE D CONCEALED INCOME OF RS.1,55,440/-, WHICH WAS REDUCED TO MINIMUM CONCEAL MENT PENALTY OF RS.46,632/- BY THE LD. CIT(A) AS PER HIS ORDER DATE D 3-10-2005. 22. THE FACTS OF THIS APPEAL, ORDERS OF THE LOWER A UTHORITIES, GROUNDS OF APPEAL, RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE MATERIAL PLACED O N RECORD ARE SIMILAR TO THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999 -2000 IN ITA NO. 617/KOL/2008 DECIDED AS PER DISCUSSION ABOVE. 23. FOLLOWING THE REASONING GIVEN IN OUR ORDER DECI DING THE AFORESTATED APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000, WE DISMISS TH IS APPEAL. ITA NOS.617 TO 621/KOL/08- M/S. M.D. MOHTA PB 9 5. ACCORDINGLY, ALL THE ABOVE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000 TO 2003-04 STAND DISMISSED STATED ABOVE. . + ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07/08/2014 SD/- SD/- [ 1 , ] [ , ] [ GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ] [ SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( + ) DATED :07/08/2014 * &2 32 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. . % / THE APPELLANT : M/S. M.D MOHTA, P-31 KALAKAR ST , KOL-9. 2 &'% / THE RESPONDENT- THE DCIT, CC-XII,, PODDAR COUR T, 18 RABINDRA SARANI, KOL-1 3. 5. 6. / THE CIT, 4. ( )/ THE CIT(A) & / DR, KOLKATA BENCH GUARD FILE . '2 & / TRUE COPY, / BY ORDER, / ASSTT REGISTRAR ** PRADIP SPS