Addition u/s. 69 against unexplained investment sustained in absence of sufficient evidences: ITAT Raipur

Bisauha Ram Verma Vs ITO (ITAT Raipur)

ITAT Raipur held that addition under section 69 of the Income Tax Act against unexplained investment sustained in absence of any corroborative evidence supporting claim of cash deposits in bank.

Facts- The assessee is an individual, whose case for AY 2011-12 was reopened on the basis of AIR information available in the system of department, accordingly, a notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.03.2018 and served upon the assessee through RPAD.

AO observed that the assessee had deposited huge cash of Rs. 34,00,000/- in his saving bank accounts, in absence of any explanation offered by the assessee, the whole amount of deposit made in the assessee’s savings bank account was treated as unexplained investment and added to the total income of assessee u/s 69 of the Act. Also, the interest income earned by the assessee during the year for Rs. 40,156/- added to the taxable income of the assessee, thereby the total taxable income of assessee has been determined at Rs. 34,40,156/-.

CIT(A), considering the submission made by the assessee have deliberated upon the issue, but have dismissed the appeal of the assessee accepting the order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.

Conclusion- Held that in absence of any evidence against the basic presumption that a register document is validly executed and the facts mentioned i.e., sale consideration in the present case cannot be disputed on the basis of oral averments or perceptions. Under such facts and circumstances, the contentions raised by the Ld. AR dehors any evidence to dislodge the contents in the registered sale deed, we are unable to comprehend and to subscribe in favour of such debate by the Ld. AR. Consequently, the grounds of appeal and contentions raised therein by the assessee in the present appeal are found to be bereft of substance and devoid of merits, thus, does not hold water in the eyes of law, therefore, the same are liable to be dismissed and we do so.

Held that the assessee is not willing to adduce any clarification, explanation or contention against the penalties levied by the Ld. AO which are confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned orders assailed before us. Consequently, the penalties imposed by the Ld. AO u/s 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) & 271F which are approved by the Ld. CIT(A), are liable to be sustained.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT RAIPUR

The aforesaid appeals are filed by the assessee against the respective orders passed by Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC, New Delhi [in short “Ld. CIT(A)”], u/s 250 of the Act, challenging the order of Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur (in short “Ld. AO”) u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 and penalty orders u/s 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) and 271F, as per following details:

2. Since the aforesaid appeals pertains to same assessee, having interconnected issues involved therein, therefore, for the sake of convenience and brevity, all the aforesaid appeals are being deliberated and decided under this common order.

3. First, we shall be adverting to the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 351/RPR/2024, wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned AO has erred on facts and in law in making addition of Rs. 34,00,000/- on account of alleged unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Leaned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the same disregarding the fact that the assessee has made cash deposit out of legitimate and explainable sources being sale proceeds of rural agricultural land against consideration of Rs. 36,00,000/- that gave rise to capital receipts not chargeable to tax and the Learned CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in confirming the same in an unreasoned order disregarding Inspector’s Report referred in Penalty Order dated 29.05.2019 passed u/s 271(l)(c) and reproduced by the Learned CIT (Appeal), NFAC in order u/s 250 dated 05.06224 bearing DIN and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2024­25/1065414442(1) that clearly states the source of cash deposit, as such, the addition is contrary to facts, law and legislative intent, hence, it is prayed that the addition of Rs. 34,00,000/- confirmed by the Learned CIT (Appeal) may kindly be deleted.

2. Without prejudice to above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, no taxable capital gain arose in the hands of the assessee as the assessee is eligible for exemption u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, it is prayed that the exemption u/s 54F may kindly be allowed as the assessee had reinvested the sale consideration of rural agricultural land in construction of residential house property and the Learned CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in disallowing the exemption, as such, the addition is contrary to facts, law and legislative intent, hence, it is prayed that the addition of Rs. 34,00,000/- confirmed by the Learned CIT (Appeal) may kindly be deleted.

3. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter vary and / or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, whose case for AY 2011-12 was reopened on the basis of AIR information available in the system of department, accordingly, a notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.03.2018 and served upon the assessee through RPAD. In response, assessee has not filed Return of Income (ROI), hence, reminder letter dated 09.07.2018 requesting the assessee for compliance of notice u/s 148 was issued, however, assessee has neither attended the office of the Ld. AO, nor any written reply has been furnished. Reminder notices u/s 142(1) dated 21.08.2018, 09.10.2018 and 30.10.2018 were issued and sent through registered post which were duly served upon the assessee, still assessee remain non-responsive. A penalty notices u/s 271(1)(b) dated 16.11.2018 was issued for non-compliance, yet again the assessee chooses not to respond. A final show cause notice was issued on 09.11.2018, as last opportunity to the assessee specifying that “why the assessment could not be made ex-parte u/s 144 on the basis of information available with the department”, but the assessee still has not attended for proceedings and nor submitted any documents or reply. Considering such evasive approach of the assessee, the assessment was completed u/s 144 of the Act on the basis of material available on record. It is observed by the Ld. AO that during the year under consideration, the assessee had deposited huge cash of Rs. 34,00,000/- in his saving bank accounts No. 111086551881 on 08.10.2010, in absence of any explanation offered by the assessee, the whole amount of deposit made in the assessee’s savings bank account was treated as unexplained investment and added to the total income of assessee u/s 69 of the Act. Also, the interest income earned by the assessee during the year for Rs. 40,156/- added to the taxable income of the assessee, thereby the total taxable income of assessee has been determined at Rs. 34,40,156/-.

5. Aggrieved by aforesaid additions made by the Ld. AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, wherein opportunity of hearing was given to the assessee on 25.05.2021 and 07.12.2023 asking him to furnish written submission in support of his grounds of appeal and statement of facts, in response assessee furnished reply on 22.12.2023, Ld. CIT(A), considering the submission made by the assessee have deliberated upon the issue, but have dismissed the appeal of the assessee accepting the order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147, the observations of the Ld. CIT(A) are culled our hereunder for the sake of clarity of facts:

6. Adjudication: –

6.1 Ground Nos. 1& 2 -relate to addition of Rs. 34,40,156/- on account of unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act.

I have considered the facts of the case, AO’s order and the submissions of the appellant. It has been observed that—the appellant has made cash deposit of Rs. 34,00,000/- in his bank account maintained with SBI during the year consideration. As the appellant did not explain the source of the same during the assessment proceedings, the AO treated the cash deposits as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant came with the explanation that the sum of Rs. 34,00,000/- and interest income of Rs. 40,156/- represents sale proceeds his agricultural land. In respect of his claim, he has furnished only part details. For accepting the claim of the appellant, following details are required

1. Sale value of the agricultural land sold

2. date of sale of agricultural land

However, he has not furnished these details fully. In the absence of these details duly supported by full sale deed, it cannot be ascertained whether the entire sum of Rs. 34,00,000/- represents sale proceeds of agricultural land or only part of it. In case of any difference between the cash deposit made in his bank account and sale value of agricultural land and also in the absence of proof of proximity of dates between the sale of agricultural land and cash deposited in his bank accounts, appellant’s explanation cannot be accepted. As the appellant did not furnish the details of sale value and date of agricultural land, the explanation of the appellant is not acceptable and hence, the grounds raised by the appellant are dismissed.

6. Again, dissatisfied with the aforesaid decision of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before us for our consideration.

7. At the outset, Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee have furnished a written synopsis stating the facts of the case and submissions on behalf of the assessee towards the grounds raised in the present appeal along with various case laws relied upon under the respective contentions raised. The written synopsis furnished by the Ld. AR is extracted hereunder for the better interpretation of the issue:

BEFORE THE HON’BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR (C.G.)

SYNOPSIS OF THE CASE

1. The assessee is an individual, currently aged about 79 years and absolutely illiterate. The assessee is basically a farmer, deriving income from agricultural activities. The assessee is a resident at Mandhar Colony, Village Tekari, Raipur (C.G). The assessee did not file any return of income as the Total income of assessee did not exceed basic exemption limit applicable for the AY 2011-12.

2. Facts in brit.:

2.1 The reassessment proceedings were initiated vide notice u/s 148 dated 30.03.2018, the assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 24.11.2018 determining the total income at Rs. 34,40,160/- after making addition of Rs.34,00,000/- u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.2 The assessee :.eing a senior citizen and also uneducated about the compliances of Income Tax Act could not file the return of income in response to notice u/s 148. The assessee was not aware about the assessment proceedings, consequently, the assessee could not submit reply in response to the statutory notices.

3. First appeal:

The Learned ‘TIT (Appeal) confirmed the addition made by the Learned A.0 in an

Submissions of the appellant on grounds of appeal:

4.1 Ground No.1:

The above ground is directed against addition of 234,00,000/- made by the Learned A.O by invoking Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee held in State Bank of India, bearing account no. 11108651881, Mandhar Branch.

4.2 Nature and Source of Cash Deposit of Rs. 34,00,000/- – Sale proceeds of rural agricultural land that gave rise to capital receipt not chargeable to tax:

a) The addition so made by the Learned A.O is not sustainable as the nature and source of cash deposit of 234,00,000/- is explainable as delineated hereunder:-

b) Date of deposit into the bank account (SBI A/c No.1108651881) was 08.10.2010, copy of bank account statement is placed on Page No. 39 to 40 of the Paper Book.

This shows the proximity of the dates and source of deposit made.

4.3 The Leaned A.O admitted the fact that cash deposit in the bank account represented sale proceeds of agricultural land sold by the assessee based on the report of Learned Inspector:

It is respectfully submitted that the Learned A.O had initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and during the course of penalty proceedings, the Learned A.O had deputed the Inspector for carrying out physical verification, the Learned Inspector had submitted his report which has been reproduced by the Learned A.O in the impugned order u/s 271(1)(c) dated 29.05.2019 bearing No. ITBA/PNL/F/271(1)(c)/2019-20/1016148146(1), copy whereof is placed on Page No. 1 to 4 of the Paper Book. Kind attention is invited to Page No. 2 of the paper book which is internal Page No. 2 Para 5 of the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) dated 29.05.2019 where the Learned A.O has clearly stated that the only source of income of the assessee is agriculture and that the cash deposit in the bank account represented sale proceeds of agricultural land sold by the assessee, in this view of the matter, since the nature and source of cash deposit in the bank account is known and is an admitted fact, therefore, the addition made u/s 69 is liable to be deleted on this score itself.

4.4 Surrounding facts and circumstances also clearly leading to the solitary conclusion that cash deposit in the bank account represented sale proceeds of agricultural land:

It’s a trite law that the court would not be rendered helpless in the absence of direct evidence as the surrounding facts and circumstances also are quite relevant while arriving at the conclusion, in the instant case, the surrounding facts and circumstantial evidences are clearly leading to the conclusion that the cash deposit in the bank account represented the sale proceeds of agricultural land and therefore, is out of the purview of addition u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Reliance is placed on following judicial pronouncements in support of aforesaid submissions:-

4.5 On money derives its nature and character from the nature and source as mentioned in the Registered Sale Deed:

It is respectfully submitted that the on money element of consideration draws its nature and source from the consideration mentioned in the registered sales deed of the rural agricultural land.

Reliance is placed on following judicial pronouncements:

4.6 Land transferred was rural agricultural land and therefore, give rise to capital receipt not chargeable to tax:

a) Distance of the land from the nearest municipal limit was more than 8 Kms, copy of distance certificate from Sarpanch is placed on Page No. 5 of the Paper Book.

b) The land was being used for agricultural purposes which is evident from the Inspectors Repprt as well as copy of Form No. B-1 and P-2 and the nature of land mentioned in the registered sale deed, kind attention is invited to the recitals in the registered sale deed which is placed on Page No. 31 of the Paper Book, thus, the distance from the land to be seen and not the village. Reliance is placed on following judicial pronouncement:-

c) Distance is to be reckoned from the jurisdictional municipality and not any municipality. Reliance is placed on following judicial pronouncement:-

d) Distance is to be reckoned having regard to shortest road distance and not as per the crow’s flies i.e. a straight line. Reliance has been placed on following pronouncement: –

e) The land situated in a village or under a Gram panchayat, such agriculture land will not be held as a capital asset.

Reliance has been placed on following pronouncement: –

f) Capital receipts arising from sale of agricultural land are not taxed as Section 2(14)(iii) refers to exclusion as capital asset of agriculture land situated in an area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a municipality.

Reliance has been placed on following pronouncement:

g) In view of above, since the sale proceeds of rural agriculture land gave rise to capital receipt not chargeable to tax, therefore, no capital gain arose in the hands of the assessee and the addition is liable to be deleted.

4.7 It is respectfully submitted that since the only source of income of the assessee during the year under consideration was agriculture and the same being an admitted fact, therefore, the assessee cannot be expected to have earned income from any undisclosed source inasmuch as the assessee did not have any other profit making apparatus, at this juncture, reliance is placed on the following judicia pronouncements:

8. Based on the aforesaid submissions, it was the contention raised by the Ld. AR that the nature and source of cash deposit of Rs. 34,00,000/- are from the sale proceeds of rural agricultural land of the assessee, the same has given rise to capital receipt which is not chargeable to tax. To substantiate such facts, Ld. AR argued that the assessee is a senior citizen, not acquainted with the assessment proceedings, thus, could not have submitted reply in response to statutory notices issued. Assessee has received Rs. 3,12,000/- from sale of rural agricultural land on 06.10.2010 as per registered sale deed, copy of which is placed before us at page no. 07 to 36 of the assessee’s PB. Ld. AR further submitted that an amount of Rs. 32,88,000/- was received as on money towards the same transaction of sale of rural agricultural land, thereby the assessee has received a total sale consideration of Rs. 36,00,000/- on sale of such land. Accordingly, on 08.10.2010, i.e., after 2 days from the registration of sale deed, the assessee has deposited an amount of Rs. 34,00,000/- out of the aforesaid sale consideration in his bank account maintained with State Bank of India, copy of which is placed before us at page No. 39 to 40 of the PB. Ld. AR further added that as the transaction of sale and date of deposit of cash in bank has a proximity, it shows that the amount deposited was received as an outcome of transaction of sale of rural agricultural land of the assessee. Ld. AR further in order to substantiate the aforesaid contentions have drawn our attention to the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, dated 29.05.2019, wherein at para 5, Ld. AO had noted that in absence of any reply to the notices by the assessee, the inspector of his office was directed to inquire and report regarding source of cash deposit made by the assessee. As per the report of the inspector, “the assessee is an agriculturist and during the year, he has sold his agricultural land situated at village Tekari amount of Rs. 34,00,000/- and deposited the same in his savings bank account”. Referring to the observations of the Inspector, it was the submission of Ld. AR that since nature and source of cash deposit in bank account is known therefore, the addition made u/s 69 is liable to be deleted on this score itself. Ld. AR further submitted that the surroundings facts and circumstances also clearly leading to the solitary conclusion that cash deposited in his bank account represents sale proceeds of agricultural land.

9. Another contention raised by the Ld. AR was that the on money derives its nature and character from the nature and source mentioned in the registered sale deed. Ld. AR also contended that the land transferred was rural agriculture land therefore, give rise to capital receipt, which is not chargeable to tax. On all such aspect, Ld. AR have placed his reliance on various case laws referred to (supra) in his synopsis as extracted herein above.

10. In continuation, it was the contention by Ld. AR that the source of cash deposited by the assessee cannot be doubted. It is further argued that subject agricultural land cannot be classified as capital asset and the consideration received as capital gain of the assessee since the land sold was rural agricultural land and distances of the said land from the nearest municipal limit was more than 8 Kilometres, therefore, as per section 2(14)(iii) of the Act, the said land does not fall under the definition of capital asset. In this respect a certificate for distance obtained from sarpanch is placed on record at page no. 5 of the PB. Another alternative prayer by the Ld. AR was that, even if the subject land is taken to be the capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14)(iii), the sale consideration received in cash be treated as capital receipts, the income so generated shall be taxable in the hands of the assessee as capital gain, which the assessee have utilized entirely in re-investment for construction of residential house property, therefore, the assessee would be eligible for exemption u/s 54F. To show the investment in house property in order to justify assessee’s eligibility for exemption u/s 54F of the Act, Ld. AR furnished photographs of residential house at page no. 41 & 42 of the PB. With the aforesaid claims, it was the prayer by Ld. AR that (i) the addition made in the hands of assessee is not sustainable u/s 69 or (ii) the amount of sale proceeds received in cash was capital receipts of the assessee which is not chargeable to tax or (iii) otherwise the assessee is eligible for exemption u/s 54F, therefore, the addition made by Ld. AO for Rs.34,00,000/- is unsustainable in the eyes of law.

11. Contradicting the aforesaid submissions by the LD. AR, Departmental Representative Dr. Priyanka Patel (in short “Ld. Sr. DR”) have submitted that addition made u/s 69 was rightly made by the Ld. AO, as the assessee was unable to reply and to furnish any explanation before the Ld. AO for huge cash deposits of Rs. 34,00,000/- in his bank account. Further, before Ld. CIT(A) also the assessee has contended that the amount deposited represents sale proceeds of his rural agricultural land, however, such fact could not be substantiated with requisite details / corroborative evidence. Consequently, the addition made by the Ld. AO was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). Ld. Sr. DR placed his full reliance on the order of Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) and requested to uphold the same.

12. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material material available on record and case laws relied upon by the Ld. AR. In the present case, admittedly, the assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs. 34,00,000/- in his bank account no. 11108651881 on 08.10.2010, maintained with SBI, Mandhar Branch, Raipur. It is also true that the cash was deposited after 2 days from the sale of agricultural land by the assessee. On perusal of the registered sale deed for sale of the subject land, the sale consideration fixed and received by the assessee was only Rs. 3,12,000/-. There was no whisper in registered sale deed regarding the remaining amount of on money of Rs. 32,88,000/-, which the assessee is claiming to be received towards the same transaction of sale neither any proof to substantiate such contention could be brought on record by the assessee. Before the authorities below, the assessee was squarely failed to substantiate through any other corroborative evidence that he had received the amount of on money in addition to the specified sale consideration of Rs. 3,12,000/- as discernible from the registered sale deed. Ld. AR tried to draw support from the penalty order passed by the Ld. AO u/s 271(1)(c) dated 29.05.2019, stating that the Inspector of department had reported that the assessee was an agriculturist, has sold his rural agricultural land during the year under consideration, have received in cash Rs. 34,00,000/- from the said sale transaction and such amount is deposited in his saving bank account. The contention of assessee based on inspector’s report cannot be construed as a gospel truth, whereas no material evidence substantiating such facts could be brought on record before the revenue authorities and even before us. Herein, we may observe that the Ld. AR’s reliance on various case laws regarding surrounding facts and circumstances, nature of proximate transaction and alternative prayers are of no help in the present matter, as the contentions raised could not be substantiated with any cogent evidence to extricate the contents recorded in the registered sale deed executed on 06.10.2010. Once the document specifying the sale consideration is registered, the contents therein needs to be presumed as genuine and the same cannot be overlooked unless such presumption is rebutted by the assessee with the backing of equally significant document / evidence.

13. In the aforesaid context, we may herein draw support from the order of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Paramjit Singh Vs ITO, Phagwara 2, ITA No. 401/2009 dated 10.02.2010, has held as under:

We have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and are of the view that they do not warrant acceptance. There is well known principle that no oral evidence is admissible once the document contains all the terms and conditions. Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for brevity ‘the 1872 Act’) incorporate the aforesaid principle. According to Section 91 of the Act when terms of a contracts, grants or other dispositions of property has been reduced to the form of a documents then no evidence is permissible to be given in proof of any such terms of such grant or disposition of the property except the document itself or the secondary evidence thereof. According to Section 92 of the 1872 Act once the document is tendered in evidence and proved as per the requirements of Section 91 then no evidence of any oral agreement or statement would be admissible as between the parties to any such instrument for the purposes of contradicting, varying, adding to or subtracting from its terms. According to illustration ‘b’ to Section 92 if there is absolute agreement in writing between the parties where one has to pay the other a principal sum by specified date then the oral agreement that the money was not to be paid till the specified date cannot be proved. Therefore, it follows that no oral agreement contradicting/ varying the terms of a document could be offered. Once the aforesaid principal is clear then ostensible sale consideration disclosed in the sale deed dated 24.9.2002 (A. 7) has to be accepted and it cannot be contradicted by adducing any oral evidence. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity in reaching to the conclusion that the amount shown in the registered sale deed was received by the vendors and deserves to be added to the gross income of the assessee-appellant.

14. The aforesaid aspect has been duly appreciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a recent judgment in the case of Rattan Singh & Ors. Vs Nirmal Gill & Ors. in CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3681, 3682 OF 2020, dated 16.11.2020, wherein the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court qua the registered documents and its sanctity, which is quite clear from the following observations:

32. To appreciate the findings arrived at by the Courts below, we must first see on whom the onus of proof lies. The record reveals that the disputed documents are registered. We are, therefore, guided by the settled legal principle that a document is presumed to be genuine if the same is registered, as held by this Court in Prem Singh and Ors. v. Birbal and Ors.8. The relevant portion of the said decision reads as below:

“27. There is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption. In the instant case, Respondent 1 has not been able to rebut the said presumption.” (emphasis supplied) In view thereof, in the present cases, the initial onus was on the plaintiff, who had challenged the stated registered document.”

15. Respectfully following the aforesaid guiding principles laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rattan Singh & Ors. (supra), supported with the analogy drawn by Hon’ble P & H High Court Paramjit Singh Vs ITO(supra), in absence of any evidence against the basic presumption that a register document is validly executed and the facts mentioned i.e., sale consideration in the present case cannot be disputed on the basis of oral averments or perceptions. Under such facts and circumstances, the contentions raised by the Ld. AR dehors any evidence to dislodge the contents in the registered sale deed, we are unable to comprehend and to subscribe in favour of such debate by the Ld. AR. Consequently, the grounds of appeal and contentions raised therein by the assessee in the present appeal are found to be bereft of substance and devoid of merits, thus, does not hold water in the eyes of law, therefore, the same are liable to be dismissed and we do so.

16. In result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 351/RPR/2024 stands dismissed.

ITA NO. 352 to 354/RPR/2024

17. These three appeals are filed by the assessee against the penalty orders passed by the ld. AO u/s 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) & 271F on 27.05.2018 & 29.05.2018, arises from the assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s 147 dated 24.11.2018. When these matters were fixed for hearing on 18.09.2024, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee, whereas revenue was represented by Dr. Priyanka Patel, Ld. Sr. DR.

18. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No. 352/RPR/2024 are as under:

1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned A.O has erred on facts and in law in imposing penalty of Rs. 9,50,000/- u/s 271 (1)(c) on account of alleged concealment of particulars of income on several grounds and the Learned CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in confirming the same, as such, the penalty is contrary to facts, law and legislative intent, hence, it is prayed that the penalty of Rs. 9,50,000/- confirmed by the Learned CIT (Appeal) may kindly be cancelled.

2. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter vary and / or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal.

19. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No. 353/RPR/2024 are as under:

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned A.O has erred on facts and in law in imposing penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 271 (1)(b) on account of non-compliances of statutory notices issued and the Learned CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in confirming the same, as the assessee was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause from making compliance, as such, the penalty is contrary to facts, law and legislative intent, hence, it is prayed that the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- confirmed by the Learned CIT (Appeal) may kindly be cancelled.

2. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter vary and / or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal.

20. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No. 354/RPR/2024 are as under:

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned A.O. has erred on facts and in law in imposing penalty of Rs. 5,000/- u/s 27 IF for non filing of Income Tax Return u/s 139 of the Act and the Learned CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred in confirming the same, as the assessee was not liable to file the return of income inasmuch as the total income did not exceed the maximum amount not chargeable to tax, as such, the penalty is contrary to facts, law and legislative intent, hence, it is prayed that the penalty of Rs. 5,000/- confirmed by the Learned CIT (Appeal) may kindly be cancelled. It is prayed that penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on account of non filing of Income Tax Return u/s 139 may kindly be cancelled.

2. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter vary and / or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal.

21. At the outset, Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessee had concealed particulars of income which are to be subjected to taxation, assessee did not respond to the notices of the Ld. AO and assessee failed to furnish the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, therefore, Ld. AO had rightly invoked the provisions of section 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) & 271F of the Act for aforesaid respective defaults committed by the assessee, consequently, the penalties imposed by the Ld. AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), deserves to be sustained.

22. We have considered the submissions of Ld. Sr. DR, perused the material available on record, written submission and synopsis furnished by the assessee including various judicial pronouncements referred therein. As the appeal of the assessee qua the quantum addition in the present case in ITA No. 351/RPR/2024 has been decided by us against the assessee, rejecting the contentions raised by the assessee contradicting the contents of registered sale deed on the basis of oral averments but unable to substantiate the same with the support of any corroborative evidence. Assessee’s written submission qua the penalties imposed are build up on the foundation of similar arguments which were advanced towards the quantum addition, accordingly, our decision regarding the penalties imposed under various sections are dependent on the fate of our aforesaid findings qua the quantum addition in ITA No. 351/RPR/2024. Further, there was no representation on behalf of the assessee before us, which follows the assessee’s persistent evasive approach even before the revenue authorities, thus, it can be inferred that the assessee is not willing to adduce any clarification, explanation or contention against the penalties levied by the Ld. AO which are confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned orders assailed before us. Consequently, the penalties imposed by the Ld. AO u/s 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) & 271F which are approved by the Ld. CIT(A), are liable to be sustained.

23. Resultantly, ITA No. 352, 353 & 354/RPR/2024 of the assessee, in absence of any representation on behalf of the assessee, are rendered as dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations.

24. In combined result, ITA No. 351, 352, 353 & 354/RPR/2024 of the assessee, stands dismissed, as per our foregoing observations.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23/09/2024.