SUNIL KHEMANI,RAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1) RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 396/RPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Sunil Khemani, who appealed against the penalty imposed by the A.O. under Section 271AAC(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for not providing an explanation for cash deposits totaling Rs.17 lacs in his bank account during the demonetization period. The initial assessment added these as unexplained cash credits under Section 68, which was upheld by the CIT(Appeals) and partially scaled down by the Tribunal in a previous appeal. The CIT(Appeals) upheld the penalty, which Khemani contested in this appeal. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the penalty's imposition but directed a revision in light of the reduced addition from the earlier appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 35690 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 22-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 27-08-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: S SUNIL KUMAR AGRAWAL; VIMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ रायपुर मɅ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 396/RPR/2024 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sunil Khemani C/o. Anil Electrical, Opp. Dena Bank, Jawahar Nagar, M.G. Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 PAN : AFHPK9274J .......अपीलाथȸ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : S/shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal & Vimal Kumar Agrawal, CAs Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 22.10.2024 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 24.10.2024 2 Sunil Khemani Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur ITA No. 396/RPR/2024 आदेश / ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 24.06.2024, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec.271AAC(1) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 20.12.2023 for the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining penalty u/s. 271AAC(1) of Rs.1,31,840/-; penalty levied u/s. 271AAC(1) is unjustified & is liable to be deleted. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, urge, alter, modify or withdraw any grounds before or at the time of hearing.” 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y.2017-18 on 28.03.2018 declaring an income of Rs.3,23,220/-. Thereafter, the assessment was framed by the A.O. vide his order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 16.12.2019, wherein in the absence of any explanation forthcoming from the assessee as regards the source of the cash deposits of Rs.17 lacs made in his bank account No.2555101091451 with Canara Bank, Telibandha, Raipur, the same was held as an unexplained 3 Sunil Khemani Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur ITA No. 396/RPR/2024 cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act which, thereafter, on appeal was upheld by the CIT(Appeals). 3. On further appeal, the Tribunal vide its order in ITA No.153/RPR/2022, dated 13.02.2023 scaled down the addition to Rs.13.50 lacs. 4. Thereafter, the A.O. vide his order passed u/s. 271AAC(1) of the Act, dated 20.12.2023 saddled the assessee with a penalty of Rs.1,31,840/-. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals), who upheld the penalty imposed by the A.O and dismissed the appeal. 6. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has assailed the penalty imposed by the A.O u/s. 271AAC(1) of the Act before us. 7. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. 8. On a perusal of the order passed by the A.O u/s. 271AAC(1) of the Act, we find that as the assessee despite having been put to notice had failed to come forth with any explanation as to why he may not be saddled with penalty qua the unexplained cash deposits made in his bank account, the 4 Sunil Khemani Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur ITA No. 396/RPR/2024 A.O after necessary deliberations on the facts of the case had imposed a penalty of Rs.1,31,840/-, observing as under: 5 Sunil Khemani Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur ITA No. 396/RPR/2024 Also, we find that as the assessee had continued with his lackadaisical approach, and had failed to participate in the proceedings before the CIT(Appeals), therefore, the latter finding no infirmity in the order of the A.O, had upheld the penalty imposed by him u/s. 271AAC(1) of the Act. 9. We have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions advanced by the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties in the backdrop of the orders of the lower authorities. As the assessee before both the lower authorities had failed to come forth with any plausible explanation as regards the source of cash deposits made during the demonetization period, 6 Sunil Khemani Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur ITA No. 396/RPR/2024 therefore, we find no infirmity in the imposition/sustaining of the penalty u/s. 271AAC(1) of the Act by them. At this stage, it would be relevant to point out, that the Ld. A.R. had failed to point out any perversity in the observations of the lower authorities which could persuade us to take a view to the contrary. 10. At the same time, we may herein observe, that as the addition made/sustained by the lower authorities had been scaled down by the Tribunal while disposing off his quantum appeal vide its order passed in ITA No.153/RPR/2022, dated 13.02.2023, therefore, the A.O is directed to restrict the penalty taking cognizance of the said subsequent development in his case. Thus, the Ground of appeal No.1 raised by the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 11. Ground of appeal No.2 being general in nature is dismissed as not pressed. 12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. Order pronounced in open court on 24th day of October, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- ARUN KHODPIA RAVISH SOOD (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) रायपुर/ RAIPUR ; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 24th October, 2024. **#SB, Sr. PS 7 Sunil Khemani Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur ITA No. 396/RPR/2024 आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(Appeals)-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. The Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 (C.G) 5. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर बɅच, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. 6. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur. "