2021 (12) TMI 544

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erein the penalty levied by the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward : 33 (4), New Delhi, as per order dated 25.08.2014, under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) of Rs. 80,000/- was confirmed. 2. The assessee is aggrieved with that order and has preferred this appeal, raising following grounds of appeal:- "1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has grossly erred in law as well as on facts in confirming penalty order u/s 271(1)(b) of the income Tax Act imposing the penalty of Rs. 80,000/-. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has passed the order without going through the facts and circumstances of the case and without giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard before passing th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....account Rs. 16.94 crores are deposited, which includes cash deposit of Rs. 13,18,455/-. Assessing Officer noted that in the account opening form with the bank assessee has shown his business of trading and job work and fabrication of aluminum and steel. Assessee did not produce the books of accounts as well as other supporting materials. Therefore, assessee was questioned on several occasions, but no reply came forward and, therefore, the ld. Assessing Officer estimated 5% of the credit in the bank account other than cash amounting to Rs. 16,80,00,000/- and determined the income of Rs. 84,04,645/-out of the above unexplained deposit other than in cash. He further estimated the profit from regular business of Rs. 2,50,000/-. A further additi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....refore stated that there was sufficient and reasonable cause for not attending/not complying the notices of the learned assessing officer. It was stated that there was no malafide intention of the assessee. No sooner did the assessee came to know about the deposit of cash in his bank account, he immediately approached the local police and lodged FIR. The ld. CIT (Appeals) rejected the contentions of the assessee and confirmed the penalty. Therefore, assessee is in appeal before us. 6. The ld. AR submitted that assessee is carrying on his business under the Proprietorship & style of M/s. G. H. Associates. He submitted that he has not operated the bank account for the last more than three years and, therefore; same was declared in-operativ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e relied upon the several judicial precedents supporting the argument that the penalty should not have been levied as there is a sufficient cause/reasonable cause for nonappearance before the learned assessing officer. 7. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the order of the lower authorities and stated that assessee has failed to appear before the learned assessing officer on eight different occasions and therefore the penalty has been levied of Rs.  80,000 u/s 271 (1) (b) of the act. It was further stated that the assessee has failed to show any sufficient or reasonable cause for such nonappearance before the lower authorities. 8. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders o....