TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 1386
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce was made by the assessee. He also noted that he has made enquiries from the Inspector. He was constrained to pass order under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). The AO made two additions and the operating portion of the AO's order is as under :- " During the year there is one deposit of Rs.1,65,20,000/- on 13.03.2008 on account of clearing from HDFC Bank, Gurgaon. On equity from bank it was found that the said deposit was received by him from M/s. Albina Properties Ltd. Enquiry was made from the said company and it was found that the said receipt was received by him from M/s. Albina Properties Ltd. on account of sale of land at Village Pawla, Kushropur, Tal & Distt. Gurgaon on 12.03.2008. Since Sh. Kamal Joshi has not filed any return of income for this year nor has been able to explain the source of the said deposit of Rs.1,65,20,000/- in his bank account. After giving several opportunities of hearings, the assessee did not attend any hearing even not filed return of income, I therefore add this deposit of Rs.1,65,20,000/- to the income of the assessee u/s 68 of the IT Act treating the same as unexplained deposit. During th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted relief for cost of purchase claimed. As regards cash deposits, the source explained by the assessee before the ld. CIT (A) was that Rs.8,00,000/- was gift received in ring ceremony, Rs.4,00,000/- was savings, Rs.2,50,000/- was gifts, Rs.63,000/- was loan and Rs.2,50,000/- was civil construction work. Ld. CIT (A) did not find cogency in these submissions. He completed his appellate order as under :- "18.3 Therefore, total income is computed as under: (a) Business profit from land transaction 1,65,00,000 - 11,50,000 - 6,00,000- 69,000 (stamp duty) - 36,000(stamp duty) = 1,47,14,000/- (b) Addition u/s 68/69A/69C Cash deposits - 17,63,500 Stamp duty paid Rs. 69,000 + 36,000 (Registration date is before cash withdrawal of 45 lakh from Bank account Rs.) - 1,05,000 1,65,82,500 Therefore, the total assessed income comes to Rs. 1,65,82,500/-, against assessed income by AO at 1,82,63,500/-. So the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment order, as in the earlier year noted above, the AO noted that there was no compliance by the assessee. He made following additions :- Unexplained cash deposits as discussed Rs.50,00,000/- Unexplained credits by clearing from Canara Bank Kashmiri Gate as discussed Rs. 3,00,000/- Unexplained deposits in bank from Smt. Anil Kumar and Smt. Ram Pyari as discussed Rs.25,00,000/- Unexplained deposits from Smt. Anita Rana as discussed Rs. 8,00,000/- Undisclosed bank interest as discussed Rs. 81,917/- Total Income Rs.86,81,917/- 10. Upon assessee's appeal, ld. CIT (A) granted relief to the assessee to some extent. Ld. CIT (A) deleted the addition of Rs.50,00,000/- of cash deposit on the ground that there was substantial cash withdrawal in the earlier year. Granting part relief on the additions, the relevant portion of the order of ld. CIT (A) is as under :- "7. Construction receipts of 30 lakh being cheque deposits could not be established to be construction receipts. However, the assessee claimed opening cash balance of Rs.36,14,500/- out of cash withdrawals of 49 lakh made in A.Y. 2008- 09. Though house hold expenses of only 30,000/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the penalty on both the sums added by him i.e. Rs.1,65,20,000/- and Rs.17,63,500/- being bank deposit and cash deposits respectively. The reasoning given by the AO in levying the penalty was that assessee has not given any reply, hence the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. Thereafter, he also held that the assessee is in default of concealment of income. Ld. CIT (A) passed a rather cryptic order. He did not fully reject the bonafide of the explanations of the assessee but held that they were questionable. Operative part of his order is dealt with as under :- "6. As evident from quantum appellate order, it is a case where neither full material facts were disclosed before the AO nor any return of income was filed though the assessee was aware of the enquiries by investigation wing as he had filed reply in the said proceedings. The bonafides of the assessee's explanation are also questionable. Therefore, the penalty levied by the AO is confirmed to the extent of 100% of tax sought to be evaded in respect of assessed total income as per quantum appellate order." 14. Against the above order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 15. We hav....