Rajasthan High Court
Vinod Singh S/O Let. Ram Gopal Singh vs Income Tax Officer ... on 7 February, 2024
Author: Shubha Mehta
Bench: Shubha Mehta
[2024:RJ-JP:6368-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 144/2019
Vinod Singh S/o Let. Ram Gopal Singh, P. No. 13-14 Om Colony,
Delhi By Pass, Jai Singh Pura, Khore, Jaipur 302002
----Appellant
Versus
Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(1) Jaipur Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ishwar Tiwari
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Jaya P. Pathak with
Mr. Sandeep Pathak
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA
Judgment
07/02/2024
Avneesh Jhingan, J (ORAL):-
1. This appeal is filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act,
1961 (for short 'the Act') against the order dated 20.06.2019 of
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'ITAT'), Jaipur Bench,
Jaipur dismissing the appeal and upholding the penalty under
Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant for
assessment year 2010-2011 filed an income tax return showing
income of Rs.1,45,245/-. The appellant had deposited
Rs.25,85,000/- cash in the saving bank account with Standard
Chartered Bank, MI Road, Jaipur, the case was taken in scrutiny.
The assessment was finalized on 19.03.2013 under Section 143(3)
of the Act. After giving the benefits of withdrawals and for the
opening cash balance an addition of Rs.15,79,000/- was made as
[2024:RJ-JP:6368-DB] (2 of 3) [ITA-144/2019]
appellant failed to explain the source. Addition of interest received
of Rs.28,418/- on Bank deposit and of Rs.5,00,000/- invested in
share and mutual fund was made.
3. The Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) while partly
allowing the appeal of the appellant upheld the addition of
unexplained cash deposit and of Bank interest but gave relief with
regard to investment made in shares and mutual funds to the tune
of Rs.3,30,000/- against the claim made by the appellant of
Rs.5,00,000/-. The appellant failed in the quantum of appeal
before the ITAT. The proceedings initiated under Section 271(1)(c)
of the Act culminated in imposition of penalty of Rs.6,50,000/-.
vide order dated 14.03.2016. The first appeal was dismissed on
16.11.2018 and the appeal before the Tribunal met the same fate
on 20.06.2019. Hence the present appeal.
4. The counsel for the appellant submits that the addition was
made on estimate basis by taking peak balance of the cash
deposits hence, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is
not sustainable.
5. The counsel for the respondent defends the impugned order
submits that the quantum addition has attained finality. The
additions were made on the basis of the unexplained cash
deposits made in the Bank account and benefit of withdrawals
were given. It is further argued that the appellant had not
declared the amount deposited in the bank account and also the
interest received in saving bank account.
6. Nine substantial questions of law have been framed,
however, the only issue which arises in the present case is as to
whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is sustainable?
[2024:RJ-JP:6368-DB] (3 of 3) [ITA-144/2019]
6. The appellant had not filed income tax returns for years
preceding to AY 2010-2011. As per the record produced by the
appellant a sum of Rs.12,75,000/- was deposited in cash in the
bank account between 11.06.2009 till 19.06.2009 and there was
no withdrawal in between. Thereafter during the assessment year,
cash deposits were made. This information with regard to cash
deposit and the interest accruing on the saving bank account
maintained by the appellant with Standard Chartered Bank was
not declared in the returns filed. Appellant failed to explain the
source of cash deposited and the addition made was upheld till
ITAT and has attained finality. The contention raised that the
addition has been made on presumption is ill-founded. The
addition of the cash deposits was made after deducting the
withdrawal relying upon the material available with the
Department and after considering the explanation of the
appellant.
7. In challenge to the penalty order, no explanation of the cash
deposits made. The reply filed was that there is no concealment of
income and there is no unexplained income. No question of law
much less substantial question of law is involved.
8. The appeal is dismissed.
(SHUBHA MEHTA),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J
Chandan/Himanshu/52
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
