TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 169
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate Tribunal is correct in law in sustaining the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act overlooking the distinction between the acceptability of the explanation offered for the additions made in the computation of taxable total income which formed part of the assessment orders passed by the respondent as against the reasonableness of such explanation in the penalty proceedings and further overlooking the explanation 1 below the Section 271(1)(c) of the Act? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in sustaining the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act overlooking the binding precedents cited including the decisions of Supreme Court as well as this Hon'ble Court wherein the levy of penalty under si....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r 2003-04, after finalising the assessment proceedings notice to reopen the assessment was issued on 26.3.2008 to the assessee on the ground that in the previous year relevant to the impugned assessment year, the assessee had made cash deposit of Rs. 11.00 lakhs in the Indian Overseas Bank, Santhome Branch. The Assessing Officer held that though the assessee had stated that he had received the amount from the entity, namely, S&S Foundations (P) Ltd., the cash book of the said entity did not show any such payment. This was the finding in respect of all the cash deposits referred to above. Hence, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act holding that there has been concealment of particulars of income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d standing counsel appearing for the Revenue submits that the assessee had not given any proper explanation showing the source of income with regard to the cash deposits. The assessee offered explanation stating that the source of income was from the business run by his father. But the cash book pertaining to his father's business did not reflect such cash deposits. Also, the Assessing Officer had imposed minimum penalty in all the above cases. Hence, the Tribunal is correct in confirming the penalty proceedings. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the assessee and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue and perused the materials placed before this Court. 7. It is not in dispute that during the search proceedings....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome Branch, Chennai. At the first instance, the assessment was finalized under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C r.w.s.153A of the "Act" vide assessment order dated 31.12.2007. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed reassessment order (supra) dated 24.12.2008. It is evident that in assessments as well as in penalty proceedings, there is no explanation tendered by the assessee as the submissions on both occasions are that since he had cooperated in the assesments, the penalty notices are liable to be dropped. In our view and more so, in view of the latest decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in ITA No.415/2012 dated 21.01.2013 titled as CIT v. MAK Data Ltd., holding as under: ".........The absence of any explanation is statutorily cons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the AO, between reported and assessed income. The burden is then on the assessee to show otherwise, by cogent and reliable evidence. When the initial onus placed by the explanation, has been discharged by him, the onus shifts on the Revenue to show that the amount in question constitute the income and not otherwise." 9. In the above case, the Supreme Court observed that penalty proceedings were justified when there was no explanation offered by the assessee for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Supreme Court also clearly held that the burden is then on the assessee to show otherwise, by cogent and reliable evidence. 10. In the present case, we find that the assessee had not offe....