KARL PESTONJI KERAWALLA, MUMBAI V. ITO 11(2)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 7152/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0640 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 05-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 06-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH A, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.7152/MUM/2013(AY. 2009-10) KARL PESTONJI KERAWALLA, 25, P.J.RAMCHANDANI MARG, COLABA, MUMBAI 400 039. PAN: AJQPK 9976 ..... APPEL LANT VS. THE ITO 11(2)(4), AAYKAR BHAVAN,M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020 .... RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI DURGA DUTT DATE OF HEARING : 22/05/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22/05/2017 ORDER PER G.S.PANNU,A.M: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE PERT AINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IS DIRECTED AGAINST AN ORDER PASSED BY CIT(A)-3, MUMBAI DATED 22/10/2013, WHICH IN TURN, ARISES OUT OF AN ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) DATED 08/06/2012. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED RELATES TO IMPOSITION OF PENALTY OF RS.15,00,000/- UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE A CT. 2 ITA NO.7152/MUM/2013(AY. 2009-10) 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT WAS NOTICED THAT ON T HE EARLIER DATE OF HEARING AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS MOVED O N BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, IN TERMS OF WHICH THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNE D FOR TODAY. HOWEVER, ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING, I.E., TODAY, NEIT HER THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE A ND, THEREFORE, IN TERMS OF RULE 24 OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULE S, 1963 THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISPOSED OF EX-PARTE QUA THE APPELLANT AND AFTER HEARING THE RESPONDENT REVENUE, ON MERITS. 4. IN BRIEF, THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSEE I S AN INDIVIDUAL CARRYING ON THE PROFESSION AS A DOCTOR. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION, ASSESSEE FILED A RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING AN INCO ME OF RS.10,97,090/-, WHICH WAS SUBJECT TO A SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT UNDER SE CTION 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 05/12/2011, WHEREBY THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETE RMINED AT RS.52,33,190/-. IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS, IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT ASSESSEE WAS HAVING A SAVING BANK A CCOUNT WITH ICICI BANK, ANDHERI, WHICH WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS OF AC COUNT. THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT HAD CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.38,41,403/- AND INT EREST OF RS.1,15,570/- AND OTHER DEPOSITS OF RS.2,30,130/-. THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES REVEAL THAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE N ON-DISCLOSURE OF THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT WAS DUE TO OVER-SIGHT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE TOTAL CREDITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AMOUNTING TO RS.41,87,1 08/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE ACT. SUBS EQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO HELD THE ASSESSEE GUILTY OF CONCEALMEN T OF INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND IMPOSE D A PENALTY OF 3 ITA NO.7152/MUM/2013(AY. 2009-10) RS.15,00,000/-. THE SAID PENALTY HAS SINCE BEEN UP HELD BY THE CIT(A), AGAINST WHICH ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. HAVING CONSIDERED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, IN OUR VIEW, ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE CANNOT ESCAPE FROM THE RIGORS OF S ECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IT IS ESTABLISHED FROM THE ORDERS OF THE AUT HORITIES BELOW THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS REVEALED NON-DISCLOSURE OF T HE BANK ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. APART THEREFROM, THERE HAS BEEN NO CREDIBLE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORIT IES WITH REGARD TO SUCH NON-DISCLOSURE OF THE BANK ACCOUNT AS WELL AS THE S OURCE OF THE CREDITS APPEARING IN SUCH ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSEN CE OF ANY CREDIBLE MATERIAL TO THE CONTRARY, WE AFFIRM THE ORDER OF TH E CIT(A) SUSTAINING THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECT ION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THUS, ON THIS ASPECT ASSESSEE FAILS. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AT THE CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 22/05/2017. SD/- SD/- (RAVISH SOOD) (G.S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOCUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 22/05/2017 VM , SR. PS 4 ITA NO.7152/MUM/2013(AY. 2009-10) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT, 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION