Devang Kishorbhai Jhaveri, Ahmedabad vs Assessee

आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2216/Ahd/2011 ( नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Devang Kishorbhai Jhaveri बनाम/ The ITO 107, Prenatirth-II, Vs. Ward-5(2) B/h.Bodiwala Park Ahmedabad Someshwar Raw House Satellite, Ahmedbad थायी ले खा सं . /जीआइआर सं . / PAN/GIR No. : ABLPJ 6074 F (अपीलाथ# /Appellant) .. ($%यथ# / Respondent)

अपीलाथ# ओर से / Appellant by : -None- $%यथ# क' ओर से/Respondent by : Shri M.K. Singh, Sr.DR

ु वाई क' तार*ख / सन Date of Hearing 27/03/2015 घोषणा क' तार*ख /Date of Pronounce ment 29/04/2015

आदे श / O R D E R

PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER :

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-XI, Ahmedabad ('CIT(A)' in short) dated 25/07/2011 pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

1.1. The order passed u/s.250 on 25.7.2011 for AY 2008-09 by CIT(A)-XI, Abad upholding partly the penalty levied ITA No.2216 /Ahd/2011 Devang Kishorbhai Jhaveri vs. ITO Asst.Year - 2008-09 -2-

u/s.271(1)(c) by AO is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice.

1.2. The Ld.CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not considering fully and properly the explanations furnished and the evidence produced by the appellant. 2.1. The Ld.CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in upholding that the appellant had furnished inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of Rs.13,61,825/- being cash deposits made in the bank account.

2.2. That in the facts and circumstnaces of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the penalty of Rs.5,21,340 to the extent of cash deposits to the extent of Rs.13,61,825/- made in the bank account.

2.3. The Ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the appellant had offered Rs.13,22,825/- to buy mental peace in view of the ill health and medical advice. The appellant had offered the said cash deposits before detection by AO as unexplained and made full and true disclosure voluntarily in good faith. Therefore, the contrary observations made by CIT(A) are not justified.

It is therefore prayed that the penalty of Rs.5,21,340 levied by the AO should be cancelled.

2. Briefly stated facts are that the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was framed vide order dated 22/03/2010. While framing the assessment order, the Assessing Officer (AO) made addition by treating the short-term capital gain as business income of Rs.2,65,286/- and also made addition of Rs.13,61,825/- by invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act and issued a show-cause notice for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. Subsequently, the AO passed a penalty order ITA No.2216 /Ahd/2011 Devang Kishorbhai Jhaveri vs. ITO Asst.Year - 2008-09 -3-

u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act dated 27/09/2010; thereby the AO treating the unexplained cash credit of Rs.13,61,825/- as concealed income and levied a penalty of Rs.5,34,591/-. Against this, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions of the assessee, sustained the penalty on concealed income to the extent of Rs.13,22,825/-. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before us.

3. None appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee despite service of notice for hearing sent through Registered Post. The ld.Sr.DR supported the order of the authorities below and submitted that the assessee did not furnish any evidence in support of the cash credit of Rs.13,61,825/-.

4. We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The contention of the assessee is that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had offered for taxation of Rs.13,22,865/- as unexplained cash credit to buy peace of mind and the offer was subject to the condition that no penalty shall be levied. There is no material available on record that the AO accepted the offer and as such the assessee was prevented from furnishing the evidence with regard to cash credits. In the absence of such material, we do not see any ITA No.2216 /Ahd/2011 Devang Kishorbhai Jhaveri vs. ITO Asst.Year - 2008-09 -4-

reason to interfere with the order of ld.CIT(A). Thus, the grounds raised in the appeal are hereby dismissed.

5. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Court on Wednesday, the 29th day of April, 2015 at Ahmedabad.

Sd/- Sd/- (एन.एस.सैनी) (कुल भारत) लेखा सद य या यक सद य ( N.S. SAINI ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Ahmedabad; Dated 29/ 04 /2015

ट*.सी.नायर, व. न.स./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS

आदे श क" # त%ल&प अ'े&षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :

1. अपीलाथ# / The Appellant

2. $%यथ# / The Respondent.

3. संबं4धत आयकर आयु6त / Concerned CIT

4. आयकर आयु6त(अपील) / The CIT(A)-XI, Ahmedabad

5. 7वभागीय $ त न4ध, आयकर अपील*य अ4धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad

6. गाड; फाईल / Guard file.

आदे शानुसार/ BY ORDER,

स%या7पत $ त //True Copy//

उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad