TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (8) TMI 1015
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessment year 2007-08, claiming following substantial question of law:- "Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the action for penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) is unreasonable, while rendering interpretation to statutory law vis a vis judicial decision qua the provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The appellant is an individual. An agreement was entered between West Point Properties Private Limited, Rajouri Garden New Delhi on 27.2.2006 through Shri Harish Bhasin, Director and second party namely S.S.Empires Pvt. Limited, Pritam Singh and Harjinder Kaur etc. for the purchase of 50 acr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant was covered under it. The Axis bank account of the appellant was closed on 12.8.2006. Except for these transactions, there was no other transaction in the said account. There being disputes amongst the parties, it was mutually agreed and decided in compromise deed to refund an amount of Rs. 3.65 crores out of which Rs. 1.20 crores was in the hands of the appellant and the said amount was returned by the appellant in cash. Thereafter, jurisdiction of the appellant's case was transferred to Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT) Central Circle I Chandigarh through order dated 20.3.2007 under section 127 of the Act being effective w.e.f 20.3.2007. Notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 10.10.2007 to the appellant aski....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounting to Rs. 1.2 crores in the books of account was against the record. It was argued that the findings recorded were perverse and no penalty could be levied under section 271(1) (c) of the Act. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any merit in the appeal. 5. The assessee had not disclosed the bank account maintained with UTI Bank, Sector 8, Chandigarh (now Axis Bank) during the assessment proceedings. On calling information from the said bank, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had deposited Rs. 1,20,00,000/- in the said account on 19.4.2006 and 22.4.2006 which remained unexplained. On scrutiny of bank statement, it was found that Rs. 1,19,90,000/- was transferred from the account of Shri Prit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y imposed penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income amounting to Rs. 40,48,800/.-. This was affirmed by CIT(A) on an appeal by the assessee. The Tribunal in para 21 of its order dated 26.9.2013, Annexure A.10, while rejecting the plea of the assessee and upholding the order of the CIT(A) had noticed as under:- "21. The learned CIT(A) after extracting above observation further observed that MOU was signed by Shri Rajiv Kumar and not by any other party including the assessee i.e. Charanjit Singh. Further witnesses who have signed the documents are same those who signed three receipts. Interestingly though the above documents i.e. MOU, compromise deed and receipts were issued on different dates and entry made on di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of West Point Properties Pvt. Limited does not contain any reference to the permanent account number of the company or the address of the company or the jurisdictional Assessing officer. Therefore, it becomes abundantly clear that the assessee has failed miserably in establishing the identity. It is further seen that no evidence had been filed to prove that the amount withdrawn in cash to the tune of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- has been credited in the books of account of West Point Properties Pvt. Limited. There was nothing to prevent the assessee from filing the necessary evidence in this regard, had the claim been genuine. Therefore, assessee could also not establish the creditworthiness of the person from whom he has claimed to have received/paid....