SHRI VISHNU KUMAR BHARGAVA, Jaipur V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-3, Jaipur

ITA 694/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2011 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 08-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J C KULHARI
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Income from undisclosed sources; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Question of law; Cost of acquisition; Wrong claim; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 44AD; 69; 144

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH HKKXPAN] YS[KK L NL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, A M VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 694/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 VISHNU KUMAR BHARGAVA D-16, MEERA MARG, BANI PARK, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE ITO, WARD-7(3) JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ABPPB 2688 B VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : NONE (WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI J.C. KULHARI (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 14/03/2018 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 19/03/2018 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 22.06.2017 OF CIT(A), JAIPUR ARISING FROM PENALTY O RDER PASSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-0 7. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE LEARNED C.I.T. (A) HAS ERRED IN FACT AS WE LL AS IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS. 4,99,321/- LEVIED BY THE A.O. U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 ON THE BASIS OF AN EXPARTE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 144 OF THE ITA. ITA NO. 694/JP/2017 VISHNU KUMAR BHARGAVA VS. ITO 2 2. THE LEARNED C.I.T. (A) HAS ERRED IN FACT AS WEL L AS IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(C) AND IN NOT ACCEPTING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AS ALSO TO THE COURT DECISIONS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE CITED IN THE CO URSE OF HEARING. THE APPELLANT PRAYS LEAVE TO ADD TO, ALTER AND/OR A MEND THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT OR BEFORE THE TIME O F HEARING OF APPEAL. 2. NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN THIS APPEAL WAS CALLED FOR HEARING DESPITE THE FACT THAT ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT VIDE REQUEST ON REC ORD DATED 07.02.2018 AND ACCORDINGLY, THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNE D TO 14.03.2018 I.E. TODAY. SINCE, NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF T HE ASSESSEE UP TO 1.40 P.M. THEREFORE, WE PROPOSE TO HEAR AND DISPOSE D OFF THIS APPEAL EX-PARTE. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON RE CORD. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HEARD THE LD. DR AS WELL AS PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 26.07.2006 WHICH WAS ASSESSED U/S 144 OF THE ACT ON 20.12.2011 AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 83,0 3,000/-. THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 15,25,000/- AS WELL AS RS. 65, 80,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT U/S 69 OF THE ACT. THE AO INITIATED PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT I N RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS. 15,25,000/-. THE ASSESSEE THOUGH CHALLENGED THE ADDITION MADE ITA NO. 694/JP/2017 VISHNU KUMAR BHARGAVA VS. ITO 3 BY THE AO BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND FURTHER, BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL HOWEVER, THE ADDITION OF RS. 15,25,000/- WAS CONFIR MED BY THIS TRIBUNAL. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE AO HAS LEVIED THE PENAL TY OF RS. 4,99,321/- BEING 100% OF THE TAX TO BE EVADED VIDE ORDER DATED 01.03.2013. THE ASSESSEE AGAIN CHALLENGED THE LEVIED OF PENALTY BEF ORE THE LD. CIT(A) BUT COULD NOT SUCCEED. 4. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS , WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REFERRED AS MANY AS 20 DECISIONS OF VA RIOUS HONBLE HIGH COURTS AS WELL AS HONBLE SUPREME COURT AS UNDER:- CIT VS. FILTEREX TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD 380 ITR 222 (K ARN). CIT VS. PH STATE FOREST CORPORATION LTD. 340 ITR 20 4 (H.P.) CIT VS. S.L.N. TRADERS (NO.2) 341 ITR 235 (KARN) CIT VS. SANGEETA LEASING 343 ITR 428 (DELHI) CIT VS. SADHU SINGH & SONS 344 ITR 316 (P &H) CIT VS. LAKHANI FOOTWEAR LTD. 347 ITR 478 (P &H) MEHSONS EXPORT VS. ITO 347 ITR 639 (ALL) PRICE WATER HOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD. VS. CIT 348 ITR 306 (SC) CIT VS. AMIT JAIN 351 ITR 74 (DELHI) CIT VS. AMTEK AUTO LTD. 352 ITR 394 (P &H) ITA NO. 694/JP/2017 VISHNU KUMAR BHARGAVA VS. ITO 4 CIT VS. P. ROJES 356 ITR 703 (MAD) NARESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL VS. CIT 357 ITR 514 (ALL) CIT VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY 359 ITR 565 (KARN) CIT VS. KRISHI TYER RETREADING & RUBBER IND. 360 IT R 580 (RAJ.) CIT VS. WHITELINE CHEMICALS 360 ITR 385 (GUJ.) CIT VS. SANDUR MANGANESE & IRON ORES LTD. 362 ITR 1 60 (KAR) CIT VS. CHOLAMANDALAM INV. & FIN. CO. LTD. 364 ITR 680 (MAD) CIT VS. SHYAM RAJSINGH 367 ITR 74 (P &H) CIT VS. NAYAN BUILDERS 368 ITR 722 (BOM) CIT-II LUCKNOW VS. JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LIMITED MANU/UP/0358/2016 THE ABOVE DECISION HAS BEEN CITED IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION THAT DISALLOWANCE OF ANY CLAIM CANNOT BE BECOME THE BASI S OF LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE WERE RENDERED IN THE SPECIFIC FACTS OF EACH CASE AND HAS NO SIMILARITY TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSI TS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOUR CE OF SUCH DEPOSITS. THEREFORE, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED EXPLANATION SOURCE AND THE SAID ADDITION HAS BEEN CONFIRMED EVEN UP TO THE STA GE OF THIS TRIBUNAL ITA NO. 694/JP/2017 VISHNU KUMAR BHARGAVA VS. ITO 5 THEN, IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ONLY DEFENCE AVAIL ABLE TO THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THOUGH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO HOWEVER, THE SAME IS BONAFIDE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY SUCH EXPLANATION EITHER BEFORE THE AS SESSING OFFICER IN PENALTY PROCEEDING OR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. EVEN WHAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED B EFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IS ONLY THE SAME DECISIONS AS WE HAVE REFERR ED IN THE FORGOING PARAGRAPHS AND NOTHING ELSE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT UTTERED EVEN A SINGLE SENTENCE ABOUT THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSIT MAD E IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND THEREFORE, WHEN NO EXPLANATION AT ALL W AS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE THEN THE QUESTION OF THE SAME BEING BONAFI DE DOES NOT ARISE. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE IN PARA 3 TO 4.3 AS UNDER:- 3. THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL AS UNDER:- 1. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN FACT AS WELL AS IN LAW IN IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS. 499321/- U/S 2 71(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 2. THE APPELLANT PRAYS LEAVE TO ADD TO AFTER AND/OR AMEND THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT OR BEFORE THE TIME O F HEARING OF APPEAL. 4. GROUND NO. 1 4.1 THE AO HAS STATED AS UNDER: 'IN THIS CASE, RETURN OF INCOME FOR RS. 1,39,837/- WAS FILED ON 26- 7-2006 WHICH ASSESSED U/S 144 OF THE ON 20-12-2011 AT TOTAL ITA NO. 694/JP/2017 VISHNU KUMAR BHARGAVA VS. ITO 6 INCOME OF RS. 83,03,000/-. THE ADDITION OF RS. 15,2 5,000/- AND RS. 65,80,000/- WERE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT AND U/S 69 FOR UNEXPLAINED BANK DEPOSITS, RESPECTIVELY. AS PER ASSESSMENT ORDER, TH E CONCEALMENT OF THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, PENALTY PROCEEDING U/ S 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T.ACT. 1961 WAS INITIATED FOR THE ADDITION OF RS. 15,25,000/- VIDE NOTICE DATED 30-12-2008 AND GOT SERVED UPON TH E ASSESSEE ON 31-122008 THROUGH NOTICE SERVER OF THIS OFFICE. THE ASSESSEE HAD PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS)-III, J AIPUR ON 27- 01-2009. 2. VIDE ORDER NO. 354/JPR/ 2008-09 DATED 31-03-2011 , THE CIT(A) HAS REJECTED THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL ON THIS GROUND. THEREAFTER, SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 271(1)(C) DATED 2506-2012, 05-07-2 012,12-09- 2012, AND 05-10-2012 WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. I N THIS REGARD THE ASSESSEE FILED REPLY REPEATEDLY SAYING THAT HE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE HON'BLE ITAT, JAIPUR AND TO KEEP THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IN ABEYANCE TILL THE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL. 3- IN THIS CASE, ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION A TOTAL CASH OF RS. 15,25,000/- WAS FOUND DEPOSITED IN THE ASSESSEE'S B ANK ACCOUNT OF INDUSIND BANK LTD., JAIPUR (A/C NO. 0016-586131-001 ) ON VARIOUS DATES DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 . THE DETAI LS OF THE CASE DEPOSITS ARE AS UNDER:- DATE AMOUNT 18.05.2005 5000 19.07.2005 300000 03.08.2005 300000 18.08.2005 300000 23.08.2005 350000 07.09.2005 270000 TOTAL 1525000/- DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE COU LD NOT FURNISH OR EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF SUCH CASH DEPOSITS , THERE FORE THE ADDITION ITA NO. 694/JP/2017 VISHNU KUMAR BHARGAVA VS. ITO 7 WAS MADE FOR RS. 15,25,000/-TO THE INCOME OF THE AS SESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUN T. THE TOTAL UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF RS. 15,25,000/- WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) WERE INITIATED, ACCORDINGLY. THUS, EVEN AFTER PROVIDING APPROPRIATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT AVAILED THE SAME EXCEPT TO SUGGESTION FOR KEPT IN ABEYANCE THE PROCEEDINGS TIL L THE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE HON'BLE ITAT. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO EXPLANATION REGARDING CONCEALED INCOME AGAINST THE PROPOSED ACTION FOR SUCH PENALTY. THEREFORE, IT HAS BEEN DEEMED FIT TO IMPOSE OF THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I .T.ACT. 1961. CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DELIBERATELY & WILLFULLY CONC EALED THE INCOME. THEREFORE, PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T.ACT. 19 61 FOR RS. 4,99,321/-/- IS HEREBY IMPOSED, WHICH IS WORKED OUT AS UNDER: 1. TAX ON DECLARED INCOME 4,064/- 2. TAX ON ASSESSED INCOME 5,03,385/- 3. TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED (2-1) 4,99,321/- 4. MINIMUM PENALTY 100% OF ABOVE 4,99,321/- 5. MAXIMUM PENALTY 300% OF ABOVE 14,97,963/- 6. PENALTY IMPOSED 4,99,321/- 4.2 DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING THE APPELLANT H AS FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION AS UNDER AND ALSO ARGUED THE CAS E ON THE SAME BASIS. ' IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE FILED A RETURN ON 26 TH JULY, 2006 DECLARING INCOME AT RS 1,39,837/-. THE ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS WERE CARRIED BY WAY OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. THROUGHOUT T HE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS THE HUMBLE APPELLANT CONTINUOUSLY PROTE STED THAT THE ITA NO. 694/JP/2017 VISHNU KUMAR BHARGAVA VS. ITO 8 NOTICE U/S 143(2) DATED 24-07-2007 SENT BY REGISTER ED POST WAS NOT SERVED WITHIN THE STATUTORY TIME FIXED AND WAS ACTU ALLY DELIVERED ON 03- 08-2007. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE SCRUTINY PR OCEEDINGS WERE BARRED BY LIMITATION PRESCRIBED THERE FOR. RESULTAN TLY, ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE CARRIED OUT EX-PARTE IN THE ABSENC E OF THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT. BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SO FRAMED AN ADD ITION WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CASH CREDITS APPEARING IN THE SAVINGS BA NK ACCOUNT OF THE HUMBLE APPELLANT. THE AO, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REPRESENTATION BY THE APPELLANT, MADE AN ADDITION T O THE DECLARED INCOME, OF THE QUANTUM OF SUCH DEPOSITS, BY WAY OF INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. SUCH AN ADDITION WAS, TO SAY T HELEAST, MADE ON A PRESUMPTUOUS BASIS. IT MAY BE RELEVANT TO STATE A ND MENTION THAT IN MAKING A CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, THERE IS ALWAYS A PRESUMPTION THAT THE DEPOSITER IS SEEKING TO BRIN G THE AMOUNT OF DEPOSIT WITHIN THE REGULAR CHANNEL, WHICH UNLESS SO DEPOSITED , MAY HAVE ESCAPED THE ENTRY INTO THE REGULAR CHANNEL . BEFORE THE CIT(A) IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS, ENTIR E SET OF DOCUMENTS DEMONSTRATING THE BASIS, DETAILS AND REAS ONS FOR THE AMOUNT HAVING BEEN RECEIVED IN CASH AND THEN DEPOSI TED IN THE BANK, WERE SOUGHT TO BE EXPLAINED. HOWEVER, THE CIT (A) TREATED THE SAID DOCUMENTS AS FALLING WITHIN THE AM BIT OF 'ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE' AND REFUSED TO LOOK INTO OR T O EVEN CONSIDER THE SAME. THE A'S APPEAL TO THE ITAT ALSO SUFFERED THE SAME FATE. THIS HAS RESULTED IN THE ADDITION HAVING BEEN MADE IN AN EX-PARTE ASSESSMENT ON A PRESUMPTUOUS BASIS, HAVING NEVER BEEN SUBJECTED TO ANY VERIFICATION AT ANY STAGE WHA TSOEVER. IT IS IN THE LIGHT OF THIS FACT SITUATION THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC 271 (1)( C) HAVE TO BE LOOKED AT AND AN ADJUDICATIO N MADE AS TO WHETHER THE A HAS ATTEMPTED TO CONCEAL ANY INCOME[ TAXABLE INCOME] AT ALL OR HAS FILED ANY INACCURATE PARTICUL ARS OF INCOME, WHICH COULD HAVE ENABLED THE AO TO LEVY ANY PENALTY UNDER THAT PROVISION . IN THE LIGHT OF JUDGMENTS ELABORATED HE REIN BELOW, IT WOULD ALSO HAVE TO BE DETERMINED WHETHER THE ORDER IMPUGNED CONTAINS ANY CONSIDERATION OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE NECESSARY ITA NO. 694/JP/2017 VISHNU KUMAR BHARGAVA VS. ITO 9 CONCOMITANTS, VIZ., ANY INTENTION TO EVADE TAX AT A LL. RATHER IT IS A CASE WHERE THE A HAS HONESTLY ATTEMPTED TO BRING CASH RECEIPTS INTO THE REGULAR BANKING CHANNEL. THE LEGAL POSITION, AS HAVING EMERGED IN THE PROCES S OF JUDICIAL CHURNING BEGINNING WITH THE CASE OF DILIP C SHROFF 291 ITR 519 AND CRYSTALLIZING AFTER RENDERING OF JUDGMENT IN RE LIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD REPORTED IN [2010] 322 ITR 158 , IS THAT DIS- ALLOWANCE OF ANY CLAIM CANNOT BECOME THE BASIS OF T HE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER THE SAID PROVISION. THE AFORESAID RUL E HAS SINCE BEEN FOLLOWED IN UMPTEEN CASES: 1. CIT V/S FILTEREX TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD. 120161380ITR 222 (KARN). IN THIS CASE THE HON 'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HAS TAKEN THE VIEW THAT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE QUITE DIFFERENT FROM A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT IS WELL-SETTLED THAT THE LEVY OF PE NALTY IS NOT AUTOMATIC IF THE ADDITION OR THE DISALLOWANCE IS SU STAINED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES. THE INGREDIENTS OF SEC271 (1 )(C) HAVE TO BE SATISFIED FOR LEVYING THE PENALTY. THE FACT SITUATI ON EMERGING IN THE MATTER WAS THAT A SUM OF RS 79,98,878/- WAS PAID WI THOUT DEDUCTING TDS AND WAS ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED U/S 40(A)(IA). I TAT 'S ORDER CANCELLING THE PENALTY WAS SUSTAINED BY THE HIGH CO URT. 2. CIT V HP STATE FOREST CORPORATION LTD. 120121 340 I TR 204(H.P.) IN THIS CASE THE HON 'BLE HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COU RT HAS TAKEN THE VIEW THAT WHERE ASSESSEE DISCLOSES THE BASIC FACTS AND DOES NOT CONCEAL ANY MATERIAL FACT, NO PENALTY COULD BE LEVI ED. FACTS EMERGING IN THE MATTER WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED THE WORK IN PROGRESS WITH A NOTE THAT THE NET PROVISION WAS FOR A SUM OF RS 2,12,18,295/- BUT NO SUCH PROVISION WAS MADE. THE E XPLANATION WAS THAT THE CLOSING STOCK OF FOREST PRODUCTS HAD REDUC ED ON ACCOUNT OF DETERIORATION. THE TRIBUNAL'S VIEW THAT ALL NECESSA RY FACTS HAD BEEN DISCLOSED AND AS SUCH NO PENALTY COULD BE LEVIED WA S UPHELD BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. 3.CIT V/S S.L.N.TRADERS(NO.2) 341 ITR 235(KARN). IN THIS CASE THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT WAS DEALING WITH AN AL MOST IDENTICAL ITA NO. 694/JP/2017 VISHNU KUMAR BHARGAVA VS. ITO 10 FACT SITUATION WHEREIN THE UNPROVEN CREDITS IN THE ASSESSEE'S BOOKS OF ACCOUNT TO THE TUNE OF RS 14 LACKS WERE ADDED TO HI S DECLARED INCOME. IN PROCEEDINGS FOR PENALTY, THE ASSESSEE TO OK A SIMPLE PLEA OF HAVING OFFERED THE CREDITS TO TAX ONLY BECAUSE O F ITS INABILITY TO PROVE GENUINENESS. THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO WAS CANCELLED BY THE CIT[A] AND SUCH CANCELLATION WAS UPHELD BY THE ITAT AND THE HIGH COURT. 4. CIT V/S SANEETA LEASI' 2012 343 ITR 428(DELHI). IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEPRECIATION BASED ON A TRANSA CTION OF SALE AND SIMULTANEOUS LEASE OF ASSETS. THE AUTHORITIES F OUND THAT THE CLAIM WAS BOGUS AS NO SALE WAS AFFECTED AND THE ASS ESSEE WAS CHEATED. THE CIT (A) DELETED THE PENALTY AS THE PAR TICULARS FILED AND THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS BONAFIDE AND DEL ETED THE PENALTY. HIS ORDER WAS UPHELD BOTH BY THE ITAT AND THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT. 5. CIT V/S SADHU SINGH & SONS[2012] 344ITR316(P&H) IN THIS CASE THERE WAS A FINDING THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN VALUATIO N STOCK WAS DUE TO LOWER GP RATE AND CASH CREDITS WERE DUE TO BONA FID E MISTAKES. IN THIS CASE ALSO THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO WAS DELETED BY THE CIT(A) . REVENUE'S CONTENTIONS TO THE CONTRARY WERE DISMISSE D BY THE ITAT WHO TOOK THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS NO MENS REA FOR CO NCEALMENT OF INCOME WHICH HAD FORMED THE BASIS FOR MAKING ADDITI ONS TO THE INCOME AND IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH MENS REA , NO PEN ALTY CAN BE LEVIED. 6. CIT V/S LAKHANI FOOTWEAR LTD [2012] 347 ITR 478( P&H). IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE CLAIMS FOR THE GRANT OF DEPRE CIATION WHICH WERE DEBATABLE AND WERE DISALLOWED IN QUANTUM PROCEEDING S. HOWEVER, IN AN APPEAL FROM THE ORDER LEVYING PENALTY, THE CIT(A) T OOK THE VIEW THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE CLAIM WAS DEBATABLE AND WAS DISA LLOWED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, WOULD NOT IPSO FACTO CONVERT T HE DECLARATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE INTO A NON-DECLARATION OR THE PARTI CULARS INTO INCORRECT PARTICULARS. HIS ORDER WAS UPHELD BY THE ITAT AND T HE HON'BLE HIGH COURT TOOK THE VIEW THAT NO PENALTY COULD BE LEVIED IN SUCH A CASE. ITA NO. 694/JP/2017 VISHNU KUMAR BHARGAVA VS. ITO 11 7. MEHSONS EXPORT V/S ITO[2012] 347 ITR 639(ALL) IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE WHO HAD PURCHASED RAW MATERIAL FROM NOMADS , WHO COULD NOT BE PRODUCED FOR VERIFICATION FOR OBVIOUS REASON S. THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) AND TH E ITAT . HOWEVER, THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT TOOK THE VIEW THAT CONCEALMENT OF INCOME CAN BE ASSUMED, BUT CONCEALME NT HAS TO BE ALLEGED AND FOUND AS A FINDING OF FACT. IT WAS ALSO HELD THAT FAILURE TO PRODUCE SOME OF THE SUPPLIERS WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO H AVING MADE A WRONG CLAIM. THE HIGH COURT ACCORDINGLY QUASHED THE PENALTY. 8. PRICE WATER HOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD. V/S CIT [201 2]348 ITR 306 (SC),IN THIS MATTER TAX AUDIT REPORT WAS FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN AND THAT IT UNEQUIVOCALLY STATED THAT THE PROVISION FOR PAYMENT WAS NOT ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 40A(7) OF THE ACT INDICATES THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE A COMPUTATION ERROR IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. T HERE IS ALSO NO QUESTION OF THE ASSESSEE FURNISHING ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IT APPEARS TO US THAT ALL THAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE PRE SENT CASE IS THAT THROUGH A BONA FIDE AND INADVERTENT ERROR, THE ASSE SSEE WHILE SUBMITTING ITS RETURN, FAILED TO ADD THE PROVISION FOR GRATUITY TO ITS TOTAL INCOME. THIS CAN ONLY BE DESCRIBED AS A HUMAN ERROR WHICH WE ARE ALL PRONE TO MAKE. THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY ON THE ASS ESSEE IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE ASSESSEE HAD COMMITTED AN INADVERTEN T AND BONA FIDE ERROR AND HAD NOT INTENDED TO OR ATTEMPTED TO EITHE R CONCEAL ITS INCOME OR FURNISH INACCURATE PARTICULARS. COURT SHALL NOT INTERFERE WITH FINDINGS OF LOWER COURT UNLESS THERE IS CERTAIN ERROR APPARE NT ON FACE OF RECORD. 9. CIT V/S AMIT JAIN [2013] 351 ITR 74(DELHI) THE DELHI HIGH COURT OBSERVED THAT THE RECORD REVEALS THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION, WHICH FORMED THE BASIS FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO LEVY PENALTY WAS IN FACT TRUTHFULLY REPORTED IN THE RETURNS. IN VIEW OF THIS CIRCUMSTANCE, THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CHOSE TO TREAT THE INCOME UNDER S OME OTHER HEAD CANNOT CHARACTERIZE THE PARTICULARS OR REPORTED IN THE RETURN AS AN 'INACCURATE PARTICULARS' OR AS SUPPRESSION OF FACTS . IT WAS HELD THAT IT IS UP TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO INTERPRET THE RETURN AND DISCERN AS TO WHICH HEAD OF INCOME THE AMOUNT HAD TO BE BROUGHT T O TAX. IN VIEW OF ITA NO. 694/JP/2017 VISHNU KUMAR BHARGAVA VS. ITO 12 THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCE, THIS COURT IS OF THE VIEW T HAT NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION AND THE SA ME IS DISMISSED. 10. CIT V/S AMTEK AUTO LTD. [2013] 352 ITR 394(P&H) ASSESSEE DISCLOSED THE NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS IN ITS RETURN. IT WAS ON THE BASIS OF THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE , THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT SUCH EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT THE REVENUE EXPENDITURE BUT THE CAPITAL EXPENSES. THERE IS A FI NE DISTINCTION AS TO WHEN AN EXPENDITURE CAN BE TREATED AS A REVENUE OR A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. THEREFORE, MERELY FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE EXPENDITURE TO BE REVENUE WILL NOT REND ER THE ASSESSEE LIABLE TO PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO THE QUESTIONS OF LAW SOUGHT BY THE REVENUE. CONSEQUENTLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE PRESE NT APPEAL AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED 11. CIT V/S P. ROLES [2013] 356 ITR 703(MAD) THE MADRAS HIGH COURT HELD THAT IT WAS NOT CLEAR AS TO WHETHER IT WAS A C ASE OF SUPPRESSION OF TURNOVER OR OF ESTIMATION OF INCOME AT A LOWER RATE . WHEN THE REVENUE ITSELF HAD NOT COME OUT WITH CLEAR CASE OF SUPPRESS ION OF TURNOVER AND WHERE THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC FINDING WITH REGARD TO SUCH FACTUAL ASPECT, IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) WAS N OT WARRANTED. 12. NARESH CHANDRA A2RAWAL V/S CIT [2013] 357 ITR 5 14 (ALL) IN THE PRESENT CASE, NOTHING WAS CONCEALED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THE AO WHO HAD REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN THE SECOND ROUND AND APPLIED THE 8 PER CENT, NET PROFIT RATE PRESCRIBED UNDER SE CTION 44AD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE TURNOVER WAS MORE THUS THAN 40 LA KHS, SO SECTION 44AD WAS NOT APPLICABLE, NONE THE, LESS THE AO WAS INSPIRED WITH THE PROVISION OF SECTION 44AD AND MADE THE ADDITION BY ESTIMATING THE NET PROFIT RATE, AT 8 PER CENT. WHEN THE ADDITION WAS M ADE ON ESTIMATE BASIS, NO PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT COULD BE IMPOSED AS PER THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF O T V. ARJUN PRASAD AJIT KUMAR (2008) 214 CTR (ALL) 355. MOREOVER, IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT NO FINDING OF DELIBERATE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME WAS BROUGHT IN THE INSTANT CASE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NEVER SUPPRESSED T HE INTEREST INCOME ITA NO. 694/JP/2017 VISHNU KUMAR BHARGAVA VS. ITO 13 FROM FDRS. INTEREST INCOME FROM FDRS WAS DULY SHOWN . FT WAS FOR THE AO TO TREAT THIS INCOME AS BUSINESS INCOME OR INCOM E FROM OTHER SOURCES AND THE SAME WAS UPHELD BY APPELLATE AUTHOR ITIES. BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT ON THE PART O F ASSESSEE. SO, NO PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT WAS LEVIABLE. 13. CIT V/S MANIUNATHA COTTON & GINNIN2 FACTORY [20 13] 359 ITR 565(KARN) IT IS CLEAR THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE AGREE D FOR ADDITION AND ACCORDINGLY ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSE D ON THE BASIS OF THIS ADDITION AND WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE TA X AND THE INTEREST THEREON IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME, IT CANNOT BE INFERRED THAT T HE SAID ADDITION IS ON ACCOUNT OF CONCEALMENT. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED THE EXPLANATION. THE SAID EXPLANATION IS NOT FOUND TO B E FALSE. ON THE CONTRARY, IT IS HELD TO BE BONA FIDE. IN FACT IN TH E ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THERE IS NO WHISPER ABOUT THESE CONCEAL MENT. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ENTRY FOUND IN THE ROUGH CASH BO OK COULD HAVE BEEN REFLECTED IN THE ACCOUNTS FOR THE SAID FINANCIAL YE AR IN WHICH THE SURVEY TOOK PLACE AS THE LAST DATE FOR CLOSING THE ACCOUNT WAS STILL NOT OVER. THE VERY FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE AGREED TO PAY TAX A ND DID NOT CHALLENGE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS CLEAR THE CONDUCT OF TH E ASSESSEE CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS MALA FIDE. THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN SETTING ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS WELL AS THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS ARE VITIATED AS THE NOTICE ISSUED IS NO T IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ACCORDINGLY JUSTIFIED IN INTERFERING WITH T HE ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS WELL AS THE ASSESSING AUTHOR ITY AND IN SETTING ASIDE THE SAME. IF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY WAS SATI SFIED WITH THE ADDITION IT HAS TO BE MADE ON THE GROUND OF UNDERVALUATION O F THE CLOSING STOCK, WHICH WAS NOT THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, WHICH WAS NOT THE BASIS FOR THE INITIATION OF THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY THEN IN VIEW OF THE LAW AFORESA ID, IT IS THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHO SHOULD HAVE INITIATED PENALTY PROCEED INGS AND ISSUED NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PENALTY SH OULD NOT BE IMPOSED. THE SAID PROCEDURE IS NOT FOLLOWED AND, TH EREFORE, THOUGH FOR DIFFERENT REASONS, THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY SE T ASIDE THE ORDER LEVYING ITA NO. 694/JP/2017 VISHNU KUMAR BHARGAVA VS. ITO 14 PENALTY, THE TRIBUNAL CORRECTLY APPRECIATED THE FAC TS AND IN A PROPER PERSPECTIVE AND WAS JUSTIFIED IN NOT INTERFERING WI TH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY SETTING ASIDE THE PENALTY O RDER. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE DO NOT SEE ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTE RFERE WITH THE WELL CONSIDERED ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THUS, THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW ARE ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSE SSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. 14. CIT V/S KRISHI TVER RETREADINJI & RUBBER IND. [ 2014] 360 ITR 580 RAJ.THE HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT SPEAKING THROUGH DIVI SION BENCH HELD THAT THE ADDITIONS WERE SUSTAINED PURELY ON ES TIMATE BASIS AND NO POSITIVE FACT OR FINDINGS HAD BEEN FOUND TO MAKE TH E SAID ADDITION. PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1) (C) COULD NOT BE LEVIE D ON SUCH GUESSWORK OR ESTIMATION. 15. CIT V/S WHITELINE CHEMICALS [2014] 360 ITR 385 GUI IN THIS CASE TRIBUNAL HAD OBSERVED THAT NO PENALTY COULD BE IMPO SED MERELY BECAUSE ACCOUNT BOOKS OF ASSESSEE WERE REJECTED AND PROFIT WAS ESTIMATED ON BASIS OF FAIR GROSS PROFIT RATIO. TRIB UNAL FOUND NO ADDITIONAL MATTER FOR SUSTAINING PENALTY. WITH RESP ECT TO RETENTION OF SALES-TAX BY ASSESSEE, TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT REVENUE COULD NOT ESTABLISH SUCH CHARGE. EXPLANATION OFFERED BY ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE TERMED AS NOT BONA FIDE. NO QUESTION OF LAW ARISES. 16. CIT V/S SANDUR MANJIANESE & IRON ORES LTD 12014 1 362 ITR 160(KAR) IN THE INSTANT CASE A WRONG CLAIM IS MADE FOR DEDUC TION AND AN EXPLANATION WAS OFFERED, IN THE ABSENCE OF A FINDIN G THAT HE HAS FAILED TO PROVE SUCH EXPLANATION AS BONA FIDE, NO PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED. IN THE INSTANT CASE, A PARTICULAR STAND IS TAKEN BASED ON THE DECISIONS-THE HIGH COURT AND IS NOT ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME. BUT AS LONG AS THERE IS NO FINDING BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY THAT THE EXPL ANATION OFFERED IS NOT, A BONA FIDE ONE, THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IS ILLEGAL. THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD. IT IS SETTLED LAW, IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IS NOT AUTOMATIC. IT IS ONLY WHEN THERE IS AN ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX BY OFFERING EXPLANATION WHICH IS FOUND TO HE FA LSE OR NOT BONA FIDE THE PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE WE ARE ALSO ITA NO. 694/JP/2017 VISHNU KUMAR BHARGAVA VS. ITO 15 SATISFIED THAT THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY BY THE LOW ER APPELLATE AUTHORITY WAS NOT JUSTIFIED OR THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED FROM SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF IMPOSING PENALTY. THE COURT FOUND NO MERITS IN THE APPEAL BY REVENUE AND THE SA ME WAS DISMISSED 17. CIT V/S CHOLAMANDALAM INV. & FIN. CO LTD [2014] 364 ITR 680(MAD) THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HELD TO BE NOT ACCORDING TO TRUTH OR AN INACCURATE PARTICULARS FURNISHED OR WITH A VIEW TO CONCEAL THE ACTUAL INCOME. IN FACT, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER IN THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 26.04.2000, HAS NOT GIVEN ANY I NDEPENDENT FINDING IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS A DELIBERATE DESIGN ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO INFLATE THE COST OF ACQUISITION. AS POINTED OUT BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ALL TH E DETAILS OF THE TRANSACTIONS WERE PLACED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER AND AN EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN AS TO WHY THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY NEED NOT BE EQUIVALENT TO THE WDV. THE ASSESSING OF FICER WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, CHOSE TO ADO PT THE WDV. THEREFORE, THAT BY ITSELF WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO FURNI SHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OR WITH A VIEW TO CONCEAL THE ACTUAL IN COME. THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL CALLS FOR NO INTERFERE NCE. ACCORDINGLY, THE TAX CASE (APPEAL) FAILS AND IT IS DISMISSED 18. CIT V/S SHVAM RAJSIN'H [2014] 367 ITR 74 (P&H) IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THERE WAS NO INTENTIONAL UNDERSTATEMENT OF INC OME OR DELIBERATE FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO BE PLAUSIBLE AND IT CANNOT BE HELD TO BE WITHOUT ANY SUBSTANCE. THUS, UNDER THE CIRCUM STANCES, THE LEVY OF PENALTY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE APPEAL DISPOSED OF DISMISSED ACCORDINGLY. 19. CIT V/S NAVAN BUILDERS [2014[ 368 ITR 722(BOM) ONCE IT TURNS OUT THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FOR DEDUCTION AS PER A PERSON PROPERLY INSTRUCTED IN LA W AND IS NOT COMPLETELY DEBARRED AT ALL, THE MERE FACT OF CONFIR MATION OF DISALLOWANCE WOULD NOT PER SE LEAD TO THE IMPOSITIO N OF PENALTY. SINCE ITA NO. 694/JP/2017 VISHNU KUMAR BHARGAVA VS. ITO 16 ADDITION AND DISALLOWANCES ON WHICH PENALTY WAS IMP OSED WAS HIGHLY DEBATABLE ISSUE, TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1) (C). 20. CIT-II LUCKNOW V/S JAL VIDYUT NIRAM LIMITED MANU/UP/0358/2016 THE ALLAHBAD HIGH COURT OPINED AS FOLLOWS : WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE AFORESAID FINDING R ECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH HAS BEEN RIGHTLY REVERSED B Y THE COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX AND AFFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNA L, INASMUCH AS, A WRONG EXPLANATION CANNOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF AN INCORRECT PARTICULAR. THE NON FURNISHING OF EXPLANATION FALLS WITHIN THE SAME ZONE OF CONSIDERATION UNLESS THERE IS ANY ADVERSE E VIDENCE TO INDICATE THAT THE CONCEALMENT WAS DELIBERATE OR INC ORRECTLY DEPICTED IN THE RETURN WITH A VIEW TO EVADE ANY LIABILITY. T HE EXPLANATION IN RELATION TO SECTION 271(1)(C) AS PRESSED INTO SERVI CE READ WITH CLAUSE (B) IF READ TOGETHER, THE SAME WOULD CLEARLY INDICA TE THAT THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) IS CLEARL Y ATTRACTED. THE COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX (APPEAL) HAS SPECIFICALLY R ECORDED THAT THE VARIATION IN RETURNED INCOME AND ASSESSED INCOME IS DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES NOT FOUND ALLOWABLE, NO PENALTY UNDER SECT ION 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT IS IMPOSABLE AND ONCE SUCH A FINDING HAS SPECIFICALLY BEEN RECORDED, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IN -THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. AS SUCH, THE ONUS LYING ON THE DEPARTMENT TO SHOW T HAT THE NECESSARY CON-COMMIT ANTS OF SECTION 271(1) OF THE INCOME TA X ACT, HAVE NOT BEEN DISCHARGED IN THE CASE IN HAND AND THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS WHATSOEVER. THE SAME MAY THEREFORE BE QUASHED AND SET-ASIDE.' 4.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CA SE, FINDINGS OF THE AO AND ITA NO. 694/JP/2017 VISHNU KUMAR BHARGAVA VS. ITO 17 SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS SEEN THAT AO LEV IED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) W.R.T. UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT OF RS. 15,25,0 00/- DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 144 AS ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE EVIDENCE IN HIS SUPPORT. IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ALSO, THE ADDITION WAS CON FIRMED AS EVIDENCE GIVEN WAS NOT ACCEPTED. EVEN IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS , NO EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED. THESE FACTS SHOW THAT ASSESSEE HAS CONCE ALED THE INCOME AND AO HAS RIGHTLY IMPOSED THE PENALTY. ACCORDINGLY THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE AO IS CONFIRMED. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT EVEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY EXPLANATION REGARDING THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. HENCE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDER S OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ACCORDINGLY WE CONFIRMED THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19/03/2018. SD/- SD/- HKKXPAN FOT; IKY JKO (BHAGCHAND) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 19/03/2018. * SANTOSH. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- VISHNU KUMAR BHARGAVA, JAIPUR. ITA NO. 694/JP/2017 VISHNU KUMAR BHARGAVA VS. ITO 18 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT - ITO, WARD-7(3),JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {ITA NO. 694/JP/2017} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR