TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 1187
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Act on account of unexplained deposit of cash to the extent of Rs. 18,45,000/-. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in fact and in law in deleting the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act on account of unexplained deposit of cash to the extent of Rs. 18,45,000/- inspite of the fact that the sale of property is not reflected in the return of income filed. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in fact and in law in deleting the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act on account of unexplained deposit of cash to the extent of Rs. 18,45,000/- inspite of the fact that there is gap of more than 3 months in the sale of property and deposit of cash in bank ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lly the impugned order. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty in dispute on the basis that the entire addition on account of unexplained cash deposits has been deleted by him, hence, there is no question of imposing the penalty. For the sake of convenience, we are reproducing herewith the relevant findings of the ld. CIT(A) given in para no. 4.2 to 4.3 of the impugned order as under:- "4.2 I have considered the facts of. the case and gone through the submissions of Ld. Counsel of the appellant. In the appellate order passed by me in Appeal No 204/13-14 dated 24.02.15, against the order u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, the entire addition of Rs. 36,85,000/- in respect of which the aforesaid penalty was imposed has been deleted. Whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of Rs. 18,40000/- which consisted of cash deposits of Rs. 2,40,000/- and 16,00,000/- already considered earlier by the AO. Hence a double addition on account of the same cash deposits was made by the AO. The appellant has given an affidavit in this regard. More importantly, the AO has acknowledged the fact that the total cash deposit in the appellant's Bank account was only Rs. 18,45,000/. Given these facts, I concur with the AO, and hold that the total cash deposits in appellant's bank account were Rs. 18,45,000/- only. Consequently the remaining amount of Rs. 18,40,000/- added to the appellant's income on account of unexplained cash deposits gets deleted. The appellant gets consequential relief on this basis. 5.7. As r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see, it cannot be alleged that such cash was used for some other purposes and was not available with the assessee on the date when cash deposit was made in the bank account. Furthermore, 'it was submitted that there was no legal bar in keeping a cash at home before depositing the same in bank. As regards the explanation behind not depositing, the cash received from sale of property into the bank account, the appellant submitted that he intended to purchase the property but could not find a suitable property for himself as a result of which cash was deposited later into the bank account. Apart from giving this explanation, the appellant relied upon a number of case laws some of which are clearly attracted in the appellant's case. For....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ong with the appellant's rejoinder and various judicial pronouncements on this issue, I hold that the AD erred in making the addition of Rs. 18,45,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits. Accordingly the addition of Rs. 18,45,000/- is deleted. Ground No. 3 and 4 of the appeal are thus allowed. " 4.3 Hence on account of the detailed reasoning given by me in the aforementioned appellate order against order u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, entire addition of Rs. 36,85,000/- made on account of unexplained case deposits has been deleted. Since the entire addition on account of explained cash deposits has been deleted by me in the aforesaid order, there is no question of imposition of penalty in respect of the aforesaid addition made by....