Penalty justified for failure to Prove Genuineness of Cash Deposits

Mrs. Ramesh K. Patel C/o. Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)

It is come on record that the assessee has not filed even a single satisfactory documentary or oral evidence or confirmation to the satisfaction of the lower authorities so as to prove genuineness of the above two cash deposits. We therefore quoting Hon’ble Apex Court’s judgment in the case of MAK Data Pvt.Ltd., Civil Appeal No.9772 of 2013 decided on 30.10.2013 that there should not only be an explanation but also it should be a well substantiated one under section 271(1)(c) Explanation (1) of the Act. There can hardly be any dispute that the above narrated facts have already indicated lack of such a satisfactory explanation coming from assessee’s side. We, therefore see no reason to interfere with both lower authorities’ action imposing impugned penalty.

Full Text of the ITAT Order is as follows:-

This assessee’s appeal for Asstt.Year 2008-09 arose against ld.CIT(A)-3’s, Ahmedabad order dated 6.4.2015 passed in case No.CIT(A)-3/ITO/Wd.8(3)(4/237/14-15) confirming Assessing Officer’s action in imposing penalty of Rs.3,92,920/- in his order dated 26.3.2013 in proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2. Case called twice. None appeared at assessee’s behest. Case file also indicates that he has never put appearance despite the fact that today is seventh opportunity of hearing. Nor he placed on record any power of attorney through his counsel. We therefore proceed ex parte against the assessee.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.