Sh. Madan Gulati, Chandigarh V. DCIT, Chandigarh

ITA 792/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8428 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 08-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 26-10-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Search and seizure
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 2

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. RANO JAIN, ACOCUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 792/CHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 SH. MADAN GULATI, VS. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLEI I, CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH PAN NO. AATPG3945K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. SUDHIR SEHGAL RESPONDENT BY : SH. MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 08.03.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.03.2016 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, JM THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)- 3, GURGAON DATED 31.8.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 CHALLENGING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT').. 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IN THIS CASE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED ON 30.06.2010 IN GULATI GRO UP OF CASES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.11.201 2 U/S 153A READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IN THE ASSESSMENT OR DER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT ON PERUSAL OF THE BANK STATEMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IT WAS REVEALED THAT THERE WERE THREE CREDIT ENTRIES IN TH E BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH REMAINED UNEXPLAINED TOTALING TO RS. 52,256/- . THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF THESE THREE CREDIT ENTRIES A ND NATURE OF THESE RECEIPTS. HOWEVER, IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE, NO EXPLANATION REGARDING SOURCE AS WELL AS 2 NATURE OF THESE CREDIT ENTRIES HAVE BEEN FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, ADDITION OF RS. 52,256/- WAS MADE U/S 68 OF THE IN COME-TAX ACT TREATING THE SAME TO BE UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. THE PENALTY PR OCEEDINGS WERE ACCORDINGLY INITIATED. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS THAT THESE CREDIT ENTRIES ARE BY CHEQUE AND SINCE EIGHT YEARS HAVE EXPIRED, THEREFORE, ASSESSEE COULD NOT RECOLLECT TH E NATURE OF THE SAME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE SEPARATE ORDER LEVIED PENALT Y U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 3. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THERE WERE THREE CREDIT ENTRIES APPEARING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSE E HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE AND NATURE OF THREE ENTRIES APPEARING IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND NO EXPLANATION WHATSOEVER WAS FILED. THE ASSESS EE EVEN COULD NOT TELL THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM THE CREDIT ENTRIES H AVE BEEN RECEIVED. THE ASSESSEE MERELY PLEADED THAT THESE WERE CREDIT ENTR IES RECEIVED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, WHICH IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR CANCELLATION O F THE PENALTY IN THE MATTER. THE ABOVE FACTS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO OFFER EXPLANATION ABOUT THESE THREE ENTRIES IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT, THEREFORE, THE SAME DEEMED TO REPRESENT THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH PARTICULARS HAVE BEE N CONCEALED, THEREFORE, EXPLANATION-1 OF SECTION 271(1)(C) CLEARLY APPLIES IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS THUS NO MERIT, AND T HE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10.03.2016 SD/- SD/- (RANO JAIN) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 10 TH MARCH, 2016 RKK 3 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR