TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (3) TMI 621
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1/A.II & ITA No.171/10-11/A.II for the assessment year 2003-04; ITA No. 160/10-11/A.II & ITA No. 172/10-11/A.II for the assessment year 2004-05; ITA No. 161/10-11/A.II & ITA No. 108/10-11/A.II for the assessment year 2005-06 and ITA No. 220/10-11/A.II for the assessment year 2006-07 respectively; confirming penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 [in short the "Act"]. For the sake of convenience and brevity, we take I.T.A. No. 2298 & 2294/Mds/2012 as the 'lead' cases. I.T.A. No. 2298 & 2294/Mds/2012 [A.Y. 2003-04] 2. The relevant assessment proceedings leading to penalties under challenge under section 271(1)(c) of the "Act" in I.T.A. No. 2298/Mds/2012 are under section 153C r.w.s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the "....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arisen from agricultural operations, but he could not lead any evidence. Similarly, the Assessing Officer made another addition of Rs. 2.50 lakhs qua bank deposits with Indian Overseas Bank, Santhome Branch which was admitted by the assessee as unexplained credit. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer computed total income as Rs. 13,13,053/- and initiated penalty proceedings. 7. After finalization of assessment, the Assessing Officer issued a reopening notice dated 26.03.2008 to the assessee on the ground that in the previous year relevant to the impugned assessment year, he had made cash deposit of Rs. 11.00 lakhs in the Indian Overseas Bank, Santhome Branch. Per Assessing Officer, though the assessee had stated to have received the amount f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....no explanation offered by the assessee, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs. 5,26,104/- vide order dated 19.06.2009 qua additions on agricultural income [kept in abeyance] and cash deposit of Rs. 11.00 lakhs. 10. Aggrieved, the assessee has preferred two different appeals against penalty order dated 10.06.2008 and 19.06.2009. We notice from case file of I.T.A. No. 2298/Mds/2012 that the CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty qua the addition made in the 'scrutiny' assessment. However, in the appeal arising from penalty order dated 19.06.2009 (supra), the CIT(A) has only upheld the penalty re addition of unexplained cash deposit of Rs. 11.00 lakhs and accepted the appeal in part. Therefore, the assessee is aggrieved and has preferred both....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re that since he had cooperated in the assessments, the penalty notices are liable to be dropped. In our view and more so, in view of the latest decision of 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 considered as amounting to concealment of income. In the absence of any explanation regarding the receipt of the money, which is in the exclusive knowledge of the assessee, an adverse inference is sought to be drawn against the assessee under the first part of clause (A) of the said Explanation. This appears to be somewhat in the lines of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the principle behind which has been ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(Appeals)-II, Chennai dated 29.10.2012 in ITA No. 182/10-11/A.II for the assessment year 2006-07, in proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act 1961 [in short the "Act"]. 15. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: "1. The order of The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) II, Chennai - 600 034 dated 29.10.2012 in I.T.A.No.182/10-11 for the above mentioned Assessment Year is contrary to law, facts, and in the circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the re-assessment framed in terms of section 147 r/w section 144 of the Act without assigning proper reasons and justification. 3. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the re-assessment under consideration was passed out of ti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntly argues that the CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed ex-parte assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer and prays for restoration of assessment before Assessing Officer. 17. In reply, the Revenue strongly supports the CIT(A)'s order and prays for upholding the same. 18. Brief facts of the case are that for impugned assessment year, the assessee had filed his return on 31.10.2006 disclosing income of Rs. 1,46,100/-. The Assessing Officer had finalized 'scrutiny' assessment in assessee's case on 31.12.2007 and assessed total income of Rs. 46,52,062/-. Thereafter, a rectification order under section 154 of the "Act" was passed on 18.08.2008 and the income was recomputed to Rs. 35,52,062/-. 19. On 04.08.2008, the Assessing Officer issued....