Mrs. Ramesh K. Patel,, Ahmedabad v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2),, Ahmedabad

ITA 1989/AHD/2015 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2017 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 198920514 RSA 2015
Assessee PAN ACXPP2612G
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 1989/AHD/2015
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 24 day(s)
Appellant Mrs. Ramesh K. Patel,, Ahmedabad
Respondent Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2),, Ahmedabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Tags No record found
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted Not Allotted
Tribunal Order Date 30-11-2017
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 06-07-2015
Judgment Text
- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH C BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1989/AHD/2015 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2008-09 MRS.RAMESH K. PATEL C/O. SURESH R. SHAH & ASSOCIATES GHANSHYAM CHAMBERS OPP: MITHAKHALI RLY.CROSSING MITHAKHALI ELLISBRIDGE AHMEDABAD 380 006. PAN : ACXPP 2612 G VS. ITO WARD-7(2) NEW WARD 3(3)(5) AHMEDABAD. / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI PRASOON KABRA SR.DR ! / DATE OF HEARING : 28/11/2017 '#$ ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30/11/2017 %& / O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSTT.YEAR 2008-09 AROSE AGAINST LD.CIT(A)-3S AHMEDABAD ORDER DATED 6.4.2015 PASSE D IN CASE NO.CIT(A)-3/ITO/WD.8(3)(4/237/14-15) CONFIRMING ASS ESSING OFFICERS ACTION IN IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS.3 92 920 /- IN HIS ORDER ITA NO.1989/AHD/2015 2 DATED 26.3.2013 IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1) (C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. CASE CALLED TWICE. NONE APPEARED AT ASSESSEES BEHEST. CASE FILE ALSO INDICATES THAT HE HAS NEVER PUT APPE ARANCE DESPITE THE FACT THAT TODAY IS SEVENTH OPPORTUNITY OF HEARI NG. NOR HE PLACED ON RECORD ANY POWER OF ATTORNEY THROUGH HIS COUNSEL. WE THEREFORE PROCEED EX PARTE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 3. RELEVANT FACTS ARE IN A NARROW COMPASS. IMPUGNED PENALTY AROSE FROM SECTION 68 ADDITION OF RS.11 62 500/- MA DE IN ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.12.2010 AS CONFIRMED IN C IT(A)S QUANTUM APPELLATE ORDER DATED 12.12.2011 DELETING M AJOR PART OF ADDITION OF RS.34.60 LAKHS EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT IND ICATED HEREINABOVE. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PREFER ANY QUANT UM APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THE ISSUE THEREFORE BEFORE U S IS THAT OF CORRECTNESS OF IMPUGNED PENALTY PERTAINING TO REMAI NING QUANTUM ADDITION OF RS.11 62 500/- IN ABOVE TERMS. 4. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE ASSESSEE HAVING DE POSITED THE ABOVE AMOUNTS IN CASH. THIS QUANTUM AMOUNT OF RS.1 1 62 500/- INVOLVES TWO DIFFERENT INSTANCES OF RS.9.00 LAKHS A ND RS.6 62 5000/-. THE ASSESSEES CASE QUA FORMER DEPOSIT INSTANCE WAS THAT VERY SUM HAD BEEN RECEIVED AS ADVANCE AGAI NST AGREEMENT ON SALE OF LAND. IT HOWEVER EMERGED IN Q UANTUM PROCEEDING THAT HE DID NOT FILE EVEN A SINGLE NAME OF THE PAYER/VENDEE. IT RATHER TRANSPIRES THAT THE LAND I N QUESTION STOOD ACQUIRED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT ON 18.5.2009. ASS ESSEES EXPLANATION QUA LATER INSTANCE OF RS.2 62 500/- WAS THAT THE SAME ITA NO.1989/AHD/2015 3 WAS RECEIVED IN CASH OF LESS THAN RS.20 000/- EACH OBTAINED FROM 16 DIFFERENT PARTIES/RELATIVES. SAME STORY CONTINU ED HERE IN AS WELL WHERE NOT EVEN A SINGLE CONFIRMATION OR RELATI VE WAS PRODUCED TO SUPPORT OF GENUINENESS OF CASH LOAN PLEA. THE A O THEREFORE INVOKED IMPUGNED PENAL PROVISION IN HIS ORDER DATED 26.3.2013 FOR LEVYING OF PENALTY IN QUESTION OF RS.392 920/- AFTE R CONCLUDING THAT ITS ACT AND CONDUCT AMOUNTED TO BOTH CONCEALME NT AS WELL AS FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. TH E CIT(A) CONFIRMED AOS ACTION AS UNDER: 2.4 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND TH E SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE AR GUMENTS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR IMPOSING PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT. THE PENALTY OF RS. 3 92 920/- HAS BEEN LEVIED IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITI ON RS.11 62 500/- WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE THEN CIT( A) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 12-12-2011 IN RESPECT OF ADVANCE RE CEIVED BY THE APPELLANT AGAINST AGREEMENT TO SALE OF LAND AND BORROWINGS ON FRIENDS AND RELATIVES. DURING PENAL TY PROCEEDINGS IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT WAS GIVE N ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY AND HE FILED DETAILED SUBMISSION BEFORE THE AO. IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 9 00 000/- THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED DURING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS THAT THE /CANCELLATION DEED IN RESPECT OF SALE OF PROPERTY H AD BEEN FILED BEFORE THE A O WHEREAS ON VERIFICATION THE A 0 FOUND THAT THIS WAS NOT SO. THUS IN RESPECT OF ADDITION O F RS. 9 00 000/- NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED BY THE AP PELLANT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS APPELLATE PROCEEDING S PENALTY PROCEEDINGS OR EVEN NOW DURING APPEAL PROCE EDING IN RESPECT OF THE PENALTY ORDER. THE APPELLANT'S SUBMI SSION THAT HE WAS NOT GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO IS TOTALLY AC CEPTABLE SINCE A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOWS THAT HE WAS GIVEN SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES BY THE A O AT THAT TIM E TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF RS. 9 00 000/- IN HIS BANK AC COUNT AND THEN AGAIN DURING APPELLANT AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS . MOREOVER INDEPENDENT INQUIRIES MADE BY THE A O DUR ING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS SHOWED THAT THE LAND IN QUES TION HAD BEEN ACQUIRED BY THE GUJARAT GOVERNMENT ON 18-0 5- ITA NO.1989/AHD/2015 4 2B09 AND SOME OTHER LAND HAD BEEN ALLOTTED TO THE APPELLANT. THESE FACTS WERE NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD B Y THE APPELLANT DURING ASSESSMENT F PROCEEDINGS AND IN F ACT HE GAVE CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS IN RESPECT OF THE DEP OSIT OF RS.9 00 000/-. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS IT IS CL EAR THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF I NCOME. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF RS. 2 62 500/- ON ACCOUN T OF BORROWING FROM FRIENDS AND RELATIVES THE APPELLANT HAS CHANGED HIS STAND SEVERAL TIMES DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. FURTHER THE IDENTITY GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITORS WAS NOT ESTABLIS HED BY THE APPELLANT DURING ASSESSMENT APPELLATE AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. NO EVIDENCE REGARDING T THE SAME HAS B EEN SUBMITTED BEFORE ME EITHER. MOREOVER IT IS SEEN TH AT IN RESPECT OF THIS ADDITION AS WELL THE APPELLANT MAD E CONTRADICTORY SUBMISSIONS DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS. THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM IS NOT GENUINE AND HE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE CASE LAWS RELIED ON BY THE A O WHILE PASSING THE IMPUGNE D PENALTY ORDER ARE ALSO SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE APPELLANT'S CASE. FURTHER THE CASE LAWS RELIED ON BY THE APPEL LANT ARE NOT APPLICABLE SINCE IN THIS CASE THE FACTS ARE TOT ALLY DIFFERENT AND IT HAS BEEN PROVED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY CHANGING HIS STAND AND HAS NOT TILL DATE FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE OR COGENT EXPLANATION IN RES PECT OF THE ADDITIONS MADE. CONSIDERING THE DISCUSSION ABOVE I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPELLANT WAS LIABLE FOR PENALTY AND THEREFORE THE PENALTY OF RS. 3 92 920/- LEVIED U/S. 271(1)( C) OF THE ACT IS CONFIRMED. 5. WE HAVE HEARD LD.DR. HE STRONGLY SUPPORTS BOTH L OWER AUTHORITIES ACTION IMPOSING IMPUGNED PENALTY. IT I S COME ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED EVEN A SINGL E SATISFACTORY DOCUMENTARY OR ORAL EVIDENCE OR CONFIRMATION TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES SO AS TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF THE ABOVE TWO CASH DEPOSITS. WE THEREFORE QUOTING HONBLE APEX C OURTS ITA NO.1989/AHD/2015 5 JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF MAK DATA PVT.LTD. CIVIL AP PEAL NO.9772 OF 2013 DECIDED ON 30.10.2013 THAT THERE SHOULD NOT ONLY BE AN EXPLANATION BUT ALSO IT SHOULD BE A WELL SUBSTANTIA TED ONE UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) EXPLANATION (1) OF THE ACT. THERE CAN HARDLY BE ANY DISPUTE THAT THE ABOVE NARRATED FACTS HAVE ALRE ADY INDICATED LACK OF SUCH A SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION COMING FROM ASSESSEES SIDE. WE THEREFORE SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE WIT H BOTH LOWER AUTHORITIES ACTION IMPOSING IMPUGNED PENALTY. THU S ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 30 TH NOVEMBER 2017. SD/- SD/- (AMARJIT SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (S.S.GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER