Tribunal upholds penalty of Rs. 9,80,628 for undisclosed income from mutual funds

The Tribunal confirmed the penalty of Rs. 9,80,628 under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for undisclosed income from investments in mutual funds. The assessee's explanation regarding the source of funds used for investments was deemed unsatisfactory, leading to the upheld penalty levy. The Tribunal rejected the arguments presented by the assessee and concluded that the penalty was justified as the source of funds for investments was not substantiated. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the penalty imposition.

---

---

Issues involved: Confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 for undisclosed income from investments in mutual funds.

Summary:
1. The appeal was filed against the penalty of Rs. 9,80,628 levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The assessee had undisclosed income from investments in Reliance Mutual Fund and Franklin Templeton Mutual Fund, which was brought to light during assessment proceedings.

2. The AO added Rs. 30,00,000 as income from undisclosed sources and initiated penalty proceedings. The assessee claimed the investments were made from accumulated bank balances. However, the CIT(A) upheld the penalty, stating lack of evidence for the source of funds used for investments.

3. The counsel argued that the investments were made from existing bank balances and the addition was agreed upon for peace with the Department. The Departmental Representative contended that the assessee's disclosure was not voluntary and the penalty was justified under s. 69 of the Act.

4. The Tribunal found that the assessee did not disclose the income until prompted by AIR information. The explanation provided was deemed unsatisfactory, leading to the confirmation of the penalty. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's arguments based on relevant case laws and upheld the penalty levy.

5. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee failed to substantiate the source of funds for investments, leading to the justified levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The appeal of the assessee was dismissed.

---