Shri Pradipkumar Jethabhai Patel,, Anand v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1,, Anand

ITA 538/AHD/2015 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 17-11-2017 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 53820514 RSA 2015
Assessee PAN ADRPP7534Q
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 538/AHD/2015
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 6 day(s)
Appellant Shri Pradipkumar Jethabhai Patel,, Anand
Respondent The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1,, Anand
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 17-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Tags No record found
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 17-11-2017
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 11-03-2015
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD SMC BENC H (BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI S.S. GODARA JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA. NO: 538/AHD/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-09) PRADIPKUMAR JETHABHAI PATEL 14 SARDAR PATEL MARKET AMUL DAIRY ROAD ANAND-388001 V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 ANAND (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: ADRPP7534Q APPELLANT BY : MS. ARTI N. SHAH AR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ANTONY PARIATH SR. D.R . ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 15 -11-201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17 -11-2017 PER N.K. BILLAIYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS PREFERRED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-4 VADODARA DATED 26.12.2014 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2008-0 9. ITA NO. 538/ AHD/2015 . A.Y. 2008-09 2 2. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS. 1 09 133/- LEVIED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 3. THE ROOTS FOR THE LEVY OF PENALTY LIE IN THE ASSESS MENT ORDER DATED 27.12.2010 FRAMED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. WHILE SCRUTINIZING T HE RETURN OF INCOME THE A.O. FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED CASH IN THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT OF CANARA BANK TO THE TUNE OF RS. 14 71 950/-. ASSE SSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE SOURCES OF THE CASH DEPOSITED IN THE SAVINGS BA NK ACCOUNT. ASSESSEE FILED A DETAILED REPLY EXPLAINING THE SOURCES OF FUNDS. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FIND ANY FAVOUR WITH THE A.O.. HOWEVER THE A.O. ACCEPTED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PEAK CREDIT BALANCE SHOULD ON LY BE ADDED AND ACCORDINGLY MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 3 74 286/-. PENALTY PROCEE DINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) WERE SEPARATELY INITIATED. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF THE PENAL PROCEEDINGS THE ASS ESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN WHY PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED FOR CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF THE PEAK CREDIT DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 3 74 286/-. 5. ON RECEIVING NO PLAUSIBLE REPLY THE A.O. LEVIED TH E PENALTY OF RS. 1 09 133/-. 6. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) B UT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. 7. BEFORE US THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN COMPLETE EXPLANATION TO THE SOURCES OF CASH DEPOSIT ED IN THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT IT W AS EXPLAINED DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT THE MONEY HAS BE EN BORROWED FROM FRIENDS AND RELATIVES WHO ARE AGRICULTURISTS THEIR NAMES AN D ADDRESS WERE ALSO ITA NO. 538/ AHD/2015 . A.Y. 2008-09 3 FURNISHED. THE LD. COUNSEL STATED THAT MERELY BECAU SE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM WOULD NOT IPSO FACTO ENABLE THE A.O. TO LEVY PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 8. THE LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 9. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER AND THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT. I T IS TRUE THAT THE CASH FOUND TO BE DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS NOT EXPLAIN ED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE A.O. AND THEREFORE THE PEAK CREDIT BALANCE HAS BEEN ADDED. A PERUSAL OF THE BANK STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING O PENING CASH BALANCE OF RS. 2 59 086/- FOR WHICH NO CREDIT HAS BEEN GIVEN. IN O UR CONSIDERED OPINION IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE CAN RAISE ADD ITIONAL PLEA SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCES. WE FIND THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVI NG OPENING BALANCE OF RS. 2 59 086/- TO THIS EXTENT THE PEAK CREDIT GETS RED UCED TO RS. 1 15 200/-. ON THE GIVEN FACTS WE THINK THAT THE PENALTY SHOULD BE LE VIED ON THIS AMOUNT. WE ACCORDINGLY DIRECT THE A.O. TO RE-COMPUTE THE PENAL TY ON RS. 1 15 200/-. 10. APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 17 - 11- 20 17 SD/- SD/- (S. S. GODARA) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER TRUE COPY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 17 /11/2017 RAJESH