TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (10) TMI 491
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....utory notices were issued against the assessee for completion of the assessment and assessee was directed to produce books of account and other details, but the same were not complied with. Later on, the assessee's counsel appeared and on his request several adjournments were sought, but no proper compliance was made. Later on, the assessee's counsel filed reply and also filed photocopy of bank statement of bank account maintained with ING Vaishya Bank Ltd. The assessee was required to explain cash deposit in the said bank account, but no compliance was made and even on adjourned dates, nobody appeared from the side of assessee. Thereafter, the copies of assessee's bank account No. 599010004596 and 599010024451 with ING Vaishya Bank Ltd. were obtained by the AO u/s. 133(6) of the IT Act. The same is placed on record. The AO found that huge cash deposits were made as are reflected in the AIR information. The details of the same are noted in the assessment order. The assessee's counsel lately appeared on 17.09.2009, few days prior to the completion of assessment and submitted that earlier no compliance could be made on account of slackness of the counsel for the assessee to whom noti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the penalty was levied for concealment of income or for filing inaccurate particulars. He has submitted that the AO has issued only general notice. In the written submissions, he has attached certain copies of the decisions. On the other hand the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that when the assessee was confronted with the unaccounted bank accounts and was cornered by the AO, it is not a voluntary disclosure by the assessee. Therefore, penalty was correctly levied in the matter. 7. On consideration of the rival submissions, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the assessee. Recently, we have considered similar issue in the case of Vijay Kumar Gupta vs. ITO in ITA No. 194/Agra/2013 and vide order of the even date, levy of penalty was confirmed. Findings in this case are reproduced as under : "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 Officer, who ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 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 statement that the shares ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gularising 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 accepted the assessment of additio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....corded 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 furnishing inaccurate particulars. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the bank account in question and when the details were called for from the bank, the assessee had to make surrender of such income. Therefore, the contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee is rejected. 6.3 The ld. counsel for the assessee lastly contended that considering the facts of the case, it is not a case of levy of 200% penalty and submitted that when taxes have been paid and the account is disclosed in the next year, a lenient view may be taken against the assessee. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. On consideration of the submissions and orders of the authorities below, we are of the view that the assessee would be entitled for some relief on this issue. The AO has calculated maximum and minimum imposable penalty in the impugned order, i.e., 100% or 300%, but at the end of the order, he has imposed 200% penalty against the assessee without giving any reasons. It is a case where the assessee admitted unaccounted bank account and unaccounted income has been assessed against the assessee, which have not been challenged before any appellate authorities and that when the same bank account has come on record, we are of the view....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing of revised return of income within the period of limitation in accordance with law. Therefore, the request of the assessee was not correctly entertained. Further, when the AO was already having information with him that the assessee maintained unaccounted bank accounts with ING Vaishya Bank Ltd. Agra and the assessee did not reply to the queries raised by the AO, would clearly reveal that when the assessee was confronted and cornered by the AO that there is unaccounted bank accounts in the name of assessee, there is no question of voluntary surrendering any amount for taxation. This issue is dealt in detail in the case of Vijay Kumar Gupta (supra). Therefore, following the findings in that case, we find that the AO has correctly levied penalty against the assessee. It may also be added here that the AO did not accept any surrender of income as per revised computation of income because the AO computed the income as per return of income filed on 11.09.2007, in which such entries in the bank accounts were concealed and the AO after making addition of Rs. 2,05,070/- computed the total income at Rs. 3,13,470/-. We may also add here 13 that the AO in the assessment order has specific....