Full News
ITAT upheld penalty u/s 271(1)(c) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) as assessee produced no evidence in defence
ITAT upheld penalty u/s 271(1)(c) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) as assessee produced no evidence in defence
Assessee was asked to explain cash deposited in his bank account. Assessee offered the amount to be treated as his income in addition to declared income. AO treated it as assessee's income and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO. ITAT confirmed CIT(A)'s order, as assessee had not brought evidence to prove he had actually borrowed money from his friend.-501429
1. During the course of the assessment proceedings and on the basis of AIR information, the assessee was asked to explain the cash deposited in his Savings Bank A/c. amounting to Rs. 35,90,000/- . Assessee claimed that he had borrowed money from his agriculturist friend to repay the loan taken from his employer. The assessee was asked to furnish the details of the persons from whom he had borrowed the money. Assessee offered the amount to be treated as his income in addition to the declared income. On the basis of this admission, the A.O treated Rs. 35,90,000/- as income of the assessee and initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. AO levied penalty of Rs. 10,31,283.
2. CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO.
3. On appeal,the ITAT held as under:
4. It is a settled proposition of law that penal proceedings are separate from the assessment proceedings and the assessee can adduce evidences in support of his contention. However, even during the course of the penalty proceedings, the assessee has not brought any demonstrative evidence on record to prove that he has actually borrowed money from his agriculturist friend. The claim of the assessee that he has borrowed money to repay the loan taken from the employer also does not hold any water because the loan is of Rs. 19,06,250/- and the assessee is found to have deposited cash of Rs. 35,90,000/-.
5. If the assessee return was not selected for scrutiny assessment, the cash deposited in the bank would have gone unnoticed by the revenue authorities. As the assessee has not disclosed the said bank account in his return of income. Thus, considering the facts from all possible angles, we do not find any error or infirmity in the findings of the ld. CIT(A). We accordingly uphold the order of the First Appellate Authority; appeal filed by the assessee is accordingly dismissed.”
Case Reference- Tejas Prafulbhai Jolapara V/S Income Tax Officer
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD "A" BENCH (BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA. No: 2782/AHD/2015 (Assessment Year: 2011-12)
×
