TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 175
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me in as much that he deliberately avoided to disclose that he has maintained a bank account with ICICI Bank Ltd. Agra even though in this account the assessee deposited a sum of Rs.30,65,735/- during the year under consideration. In this regard, it has been noticed that the assessee was required to give the details of all the bank accounts maintained by him during the year under consideration by letter of the AO dated 27.04.2010 issued u/s. 142(1) of the IT Act. In response to this notice, the assessee filed written reply dated 22.10.2010 and assessee has stated that he has maintained one bank account in bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and apart from this, he has not maintained any other bank account. Thus, the assessee has avoided to disclose his other bank account maintained with ICICI Bank even though he was specifically asked to disclose all his bank accounts. Subsequently, information in respect of cash deposit over Rs.10 lacs has been gathered by the department and has come to the notice that the assessee in the aforesaid bank account with ICICI Bank deposited cash over Rs.30 lacs during the year under consideration. Copy of the bank account has been obtained from ICICI Bank. The A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ld. CIT(A) did not consider the explanation of the assessee favourably and confirmed the penalty. The ld. CIT(A) also found that the assessee has not disclosed bank account maintained with ICICI Bank in which more than Rs.30 lacs cash was deposited during the year under consideration. The assessee has not furnished any particulars of his income and source of deposit in the bank account. Further, the assessee has not filed any satisfactory explanation on the issue, therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was of the view that the AO was correct in holding that the assessee has willfully concealed the particulars of his income by not disclosing the fact of maintaining bank account with ICICI Bank. The appeal was, accordingly, dismissed. 5 ITA No. 194/Agra/2014 4. The assessee is in appeal before us challenging confirmation of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 5. We have heard the ld. representatives of both the parties, perused the findings of authorities below and considered the material available on record. 5.1 It is admitted fact that the bank account in question with ICICI Bank Ltd., Sanjay Place, Agra was concealed by the assessee from the Revenue Department. It is the Assessing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal, that the question whether there is concealment of income or not has to be decided with reference to the facts of a given case and the fact finding authorities under the Act having come to the conclusion that in the facts of the case, the assessee had concealed the income initially with a view to avoid the payment of tax, the imposition of penalty was valid." 5.3 Hon'ble jurisdictional Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rakesh Suri 331 ITR 458 held - "The assessee filed his return for the assessment year 2004-05 disclosing total of Rs. 1,17,600. The case was selected for scrutiny. It was found that the assessee had shown long-term capital gains on sale of shares. He had constructed a house between financial years 2001-02 and 2004-05 investing Rs.56,74,567. The income-tax authorities repeatedly required the assessee to furnish the contract note of purchase and sale of shares sold with a copy of bill of broker, justify holding of shares, which were sold, year-wise investment in the house property, valuation report of the approved valuer, confirmation of salary received from the company and other documents. The assessee did not furnish full details. His statem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... could be finalised, after regularising the same by issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee came forward with another application declaring additional income of Rs. 78,56,613. The first declaration was in relation to purchases from ISC while the second disclosure was in relation to purchase made from SC, NB and NPST. The assessments were not challenged by the assessee. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(l)(c). The explanation of the assessee for all the three years was that revised returns were voluntary, additional income in each of the revised returns was declared to purchase peace and no concealment was involved. It was submitted that the returns were revised even before issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation of the assessee and levied penalties. Successive appeals filed by the assessee before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal were dismissed by the two appellate authorities confirming the penalties levied by the Assessing Officer. However, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessee had co-operated in finalisation of the assessment and accep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....proceedings, finding of fact recorded by the AO which have reached finality cannot be disturbed. The ld. counsel for the assessee further submitted that when peak addition of the same bank account is maintained, the gross profit addition should also not be added. But the assessee did not challenge any addition made by the AO in further appeal before any authority and further in the penalty proceedings, no such points have been admittedly raised. Findings given in the assessment order have probative value and shall have to be considered in the light of facts of the case. Therefore, the contentions of the ld. counsel for the assessee have no merits and are accordingly rejected. 6.1 The ld. counsel for the assessee further submitted that the AO has nowhere recorded in the impugned orders whether it is a case of concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, conditions of section 271(1)(c) are not satisfied. He has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of New Sorathia Engineering Co. vs. CIT, 282 ITR 642, in which it was held that order of penalty must clearly state whether it is for concealment or for ....