TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 1553
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(6) of the Act for the assessment years 2001-02 to 2007-08. Since the issues involved in all these appeals are common, they are heard together and disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. The assessee in these seven appeals has raised several elaborate grounds. However, the cruxes of the identical issues in these appeals are that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act made by the learned Assessing Officer. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in pawn broking business by obtaining license along with his wife Smt. Meeradevi from the year 2000 onwards. The assessee is also an employee of M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to 2007-08. 4. The learned Assessing Officer had levied penalty for the relevant assessment years herein below for the following reasons:- Assessment year Reasons for making addition Amt. of Addition Rs. 100% of tax sought to be evaded is levied as penalty Rs. 2001-02 i)Un-explained loan ii)Incorrect claim of Agricultural income 35,84,039 23,765 36,07,804 12,66,369 2002-03 i)Un-explained loan ii)Incorrect claim of Agricultural income 50,48,650 22,221 50,70,871 15,51,686 2003-04 i)Un-explained loan ii)Incorrect claim of Agricultural income iii) Unrecorded bond loan 31,91,005 26,675 3,28,030 35,45,710 11,16,898 2004-05 i)Un-explained lo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... penalty proceedings the assessee could not explain the genuiness of the loan transactions which cemented the fact that there is concealment of income. Incorrect claim of Agricultural Income: 4.2 For all the assessment years mentioned herein above, the learned Assessing Officer had made additions disbelieving the claim of the assessee that he had received agricultural income only for the reasons that no agricultural income was declared by the assessee's wife Smt.Meera Devi, who had agricultural lands adjacent to the land owned by the assessee. Further the learned Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has not furnished any evidence to explain the claim of agricultural income. Hence he opined that the assessee had concealed th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee had invested in M/s.Ramdev jewellery Rs. 50,000/- by introducing cash as his Capital. The source of investment of cash could not be explained by the assessee. Therefore, the learned Assessing Officer made the addition and levied penalty. Unexplained investment in unredeemed pawn item :- 4.6 During the assessment year 2005-06, the assessee has unredeemed pawn items which has an increase by Rs. 20,27,745/- compared to the earlier year. Since the assessee could not explain the source for this investment additions were made and penalty was levied. Investment for which source is not proved : 4.7 During the relevant assessment years 2006-07 & 200708, it was observed by the learned Assessing Officer that the assessee h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sh his source for investment in all these assessment years mentioned herein above which was conceded by the assessee as well and further for the reason that the assessee even after the search proceedings did not disclose his true income, the learned Assessing Officer levied minimum penalty @ 100% of tax on the income sought to be evaded. 5. On appeal, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of the learned Assessing Officer by stating that levy of penalty for concealment of income is appropriate in these cases because the assessee had failed to offer any explanation to the additions made which were based on materials found during the course of search. 6. Before us also the assessee has not produced a....