Narendra Kumar Shinghal, Shivpuri V. I.T.O., Shivpuri

ITA 77/AGR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9981 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 21-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 03-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Gift; Reasonable cause
• Section: 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBE R AND MRS. ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA, ACCOUNT ANT MEMBER ITA NO. 77/AGRA/2014 ASSTT. YEAR : 2001-02 SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR SINGHAL, VS. INCOME-TAX OFFIC ER, PROP. N.K. BROTHERS, A.B. ROAD, SHIVPURI. KOLARAS, DISTT. SHIVPURI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI WASEEM ARSHAD, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 04.02.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.02.2016 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), GWALIOR DATED 30.12.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, CHALLENGING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF T HE IT ACT. 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE PENA LTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED FOR NOT DISCLOSING INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 45,663/- RECEIVED FROM K.S. OIL MILLS LTD., MORENA AND UNEXPLAINED CASH INTRODU CED IN CAPITAL ACCOUNT AMOUNTING TO RS.51,000/-. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AP PEAL BEFORE THE LD. ITA NO.77/AGRA/2014 2 CIT(A), CHALLENGING THE ADDITION OF RS.51,000/- MAD E BY THE AO. THE LEARNED CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 18.02.2005 HAS DELETED THE ADDITION. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CONTEST THE ADDITION OF RS.45,663/ - BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AS MADE BY THE AO AND ACCEPTED THE ADDITION OF RS.45,6 63/-. THE DEPARTMENT PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT WHO VIDE ORDER DAT ED 24.10.2008 HAS SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS.5337/- OUT OF TOTAL AD DITION OF RS.51,000/- MADE BY THE AO. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE AO WAS OF TH E VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME/HAS FURNISH ED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.45,663/- ON ACCOUNT O F NOT DECLARING THE INTEREST INCOME FROM M/S. K.S. OIL MILLS LTD., MORENA AND RS .5337/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH INTRODUCED IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT, AS CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE AO THAT THERE IS A MISTAKE IN NOT SHOWING INTEREST INCOME, THEREFORE, IT WAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION. THE CASH INTRODUCED TO THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT WAS OUT OF GIFT F OR WHICH AFFIDAVIT OF THE DONOR WAS FILED. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTI ON OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE DIRECT ENQUIRY U/S. 133(6) WAS MADE FROM M/S. K. S. OIL MILLS LTD. BY ASKING THEM TO FURNISH THE COPY OF ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR. THE FACT THAT INTEREST OF 45,663/- DEBITED BY M/S. K.S. OIL MILLS LTD. HAS NOT BEEN CREDITED BY THE ASSESSEE, WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEN ONLY, THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE INTEREST INCOME. SI NCE THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING ITA NO.77/AGRA/2014 3 MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, THEREFORE, EARNING OF INTEREST INCOME WAS DETECTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. HENCE, THE AO CONCLUDED THAT THE SAME COULD NOT BE THE INCOME DECLARED VOLUNTARILY BY THE ASSESSEE. HAD THIS MISTAKE BEEN DETECTED BY THE ASSESSEE, HE SHOULD HAVE REVISED TH E RETURN, BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DO SO. AS REGARDS THE UNEXPLAINED CASH DE POSIT IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY SUFFICIENT EVIDENC E BEFORE THE AO. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE SAME TO BE INCOME CONCEALED FROM TH E REVENUE DEPARTMENT, PENALTY WAS LEVIED. 3. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE PENALTY ORDER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT OFFER THE I NTEREST INCOME BECAUSE NO INTIMATION WAS GIVEN BY M/S. K.S. OIL MILLS LTD., T O THE ASSESSEE. NO FURTHER SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE. THE LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, FOU ND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT IT HAS NOT CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF RS.45,663/- AND RS.5337/-. THEREFORE, PENALTY WAS C ORRECTLY LEVIED IN VIEW OF THE EXPLANATION-I TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT A ND ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEAR ING ON SEVERAL DATES AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ARGUE THE APPEAL. THE COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD ITA NO.77/AGRA/2014 4 BEEN SEEKING ADJOURNMENTS ONLY. THEREAFTER, ON MANY DATES, BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION AND ULTIMATELY, THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FO R HEARING ON 04.02.2016. THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL AGAIN SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT BEC AUSE THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ATTENDING MARRIAGE IN DELHI. CONS IDERING THE SMALL ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL AND THAT ON MANY OCC ASIONS, THE APPEAL HAS BEEN ADJOURNED AND NO REASONABLE CAUSE HAS BEEN GIV EN FOR SEEKING ADJOURNMENT, THE APPEAL IS HEARD IN ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE FINDING S OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ACCORDING TO THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE, THE AO MADE DIRECT ENQUIRY FROM M/S. K.S. OI L MILLS LTD., MORENA BY ASKING THEM TO FURNISH COPY OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSES SEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE AO DISCOVERED THE FACT THAT INTEREST OF 45,663/- HAS BEEN DEBITED BY THIS PARTY IN THEIR ACCOUNT, WH ICH HAS NOT BEEN CREDITED BY THE ASSESSEE. WHEN THIS FACT WAS CONFRONTED TO T HE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE OFFERED THE SAME FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAXATION. THERE FORE, IT IS A CLEAR CASE THAT THE ABOVE FACT WAS DETECTED BY THE REVENUE AND THER EAFTER ONLY THE ASSESSEE OFFERED THE INTEREST FOR TAXATION AS INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. MOREOVER, THE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME SHALL HAVE TO B E CONSIDERED WITH REFERENCE TO THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID ITA NO.77/AGRA/2014 5 NOT DISCLOSE THE INTEREST INCOME IN THE RETURN, THE REFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. HAD THE AO NOT MADE THE DIRECT ENQUIRY FROM THIS PARTY, THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT HAVE DISCLO SED THE INTEREST INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAXATION. FURTHER THIS ADDITION IS N OT CONTESTED AND NO EVIDENCE WAS FILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE PLEA TAKEN BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSEE MERELY CLAIMED THAT NO INTIMATION WAS GIVE N BY M/S. K.S. OIL MILLS LTD., MORENA FOR DEBITING THE INTEREST IN THEIR ACC OUNT. SUCH A PLEA WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS REGARDS TH E ADDITION OF RS.5337/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH INTRODUCED IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT, THIS ADDITION HAS BEEN MAINTAINED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THIS ISSUE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND NO EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL WAS FILE D TO EXPLAIN FROM WHERE THE CASH WAS INTRODUCED IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT. MERE FI LING OF AFFIDAVIT OF THE DONOR BEFORE THE AO IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DISCHARGE THE ON US ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINE GIFT IN THE MATTER. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO OFFER ANY EXPLANATION ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND WHATEVER SUBMISSION WAS MADE, WAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED BY ANY EVIDENCE. THEREF ORE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT EXPLANATION-I TO SECTION 271(1)(C) IS CLEARLY APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. ITA NO.77/AGRA/2014 6 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF P ENALTY. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NO MERIT AND THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY D ISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 08.02.16 *AKS/- COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR