TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 285
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the Assessing Officer's action imposing the impugned sec. 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs. 8,63,500/-. He is engaged in the business(es) of transport, construction, petroleum products and also derives agricultural income. The transport business is being run in the name & style of M/s. Neelam Transport. This whole episode has arisen from a robbery incident dated 31/03/2005 involving a sum of Rs. 20 lacs from assessee/his representative. The same was to be deposited to a shroff namely; Kiritkumar Champaklal Gashawala at Umreth, Disstt. Anand. A complaint was lodged. The police recovered the said amount and informed the deptt; who in turn carried out a survey dated 01/04/2005 at assessee's business premises. He inter alias disclosed additional incom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of M/s Neelam Construction on 25.3.2005 was not accepted by the A.O. on the ground that when his statement was recorded during the survey proceedings, he admitted that this amount was out of his unaccounted income. The other ground for not accepting the assessee's explanation was that in the books of account impounded at the time of survey there was no account of shroff at Urnreth. Assessee however, during the appellate proceedings was able to show that Shroff was assessee's creditor and the total borrowings during the year was Rs. 82,83,279/- and the assessee's employee was going to deposit the sum of Rs. 20/- lacs in the account of- shroff at Umreth. This submission of the assessee was not acceptable to the Id. CIT(A) as he wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as laid down in those case laws is not applicable to the facts of this case." 3. The assessee does not seem to have exercised his further remedies challenging the above extracted findings. We infer in these circumstances that quantum proceedings accordingly attained finality. 4. The Assessing Officer took up penalty proceedings. He quoted chronology of robbery, survey and assessee's statement for coming to a conclusion that his case attracted both components of section. 271(1)(c) penalty i.e. concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income for imposing the impugned section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs. 8,63,500/- arising from the abvoestated unexplained cash addition of Rs. 20 lacs in order dated 25-03-2010. 5. The Commis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orrect that appellant had been questioned about cash withdrawal of Rs. 20,00,000/- from Bank of Baroda on 25.3.2005 in the statement U/S.133A, however, in his reply, the appellant had not claimed the robbed cash to be out of cash withdrawn from the bank. On the contrary, while in Q.No.6 of the statement U/S.133A, withdrawal from the bank was asked about, immediately thereafter in reply to Q.No.7, appellant admitted the robbed cash to be his unaccounted income. There was no reason for the appellant to have not mentioned the vital fact regarding the stolen cash to be out of cash withdrawn from the bank. In the other statement U/S.133A, in answer to Q.No.35, appellant again accepted the robbed cash to be representing his unaccounted income. In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was out of unaccounted income. The appellant in his statement u/s 133A had not claimed that the robbed cash was out of cash withdrawn from the bank. On the contrary while in question No. 6 of the statement u/s 133A , withdrawal from the bank was asked about , immediately thereafter in reply to question No. 7, the appellant admitted the robbed cash to be his unaccounted income. It is rightly observed by the Ld. CIT(A) that there was no reason for the appellant to have not mentioned the vital fact regarding the stolen cash to be out of cash withdrawn from the Bank. In the other statement u/s 133A in answer to question No. 35, appellant again accepted the robbed cash to be representing his unaccounted income. In this situation, claiming the ro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esumptions only. Case law of (2013) 3521 ISTR 480 (SC) CI Tax vs. Khader Khan & Sons, (2001) 249 ITR 125 (Guj) National Textiles vs. CIT and (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) CIT vs. Reliance Petro-products Pvt. Ltd is quoted in support. The Revenue strongly argues in favour of the impugned penalty as per assessee's survey statement and assail books entries already proved false in quantum proceedings. 5. We have heard both the parties and gone through case record. There is no dispute that assessee withdraw a sum of Rs. 24 lacs on 24-03-2005. This was followed by the robbery of Rs. 20 lacs as on 31/03/2005. The impugned survey was conducted on 01/04/2005 wherein the assessee failed to explain his pencil entries and also the source of the sum robbed....