Case Law Details
Brijesh Jaikishin Rupani Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
ITAT Mumbai held that The income offered by assessee in income filed pursuant to issue of notice under section 153A was the income detected during the course of search and seizure operation. The case of assessee was squarely covered by provisions of Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c), because assessee would not have disclosed the income in respect of undisclosed income if no search operation was conducted and the amounts shown by assessee were not part of his regular income. Therefore, imposition of penalty was justified.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the assessee and the same is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-32, Mumbai, dated 23-01-2018 for the AY. 2010-11.
2. This appeal was fixed for hearing on 30-01-2019. Notice of hearing was sent to the assessee by RPAD on the address provided by the assessee in Form No. 36 i.e. the appeal memo.
The said notice has not come back un-served and therefore, service of notice is presumed. None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing and there is no request for adjournment. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee is decided ex-parte qua the assessee.
3. Ld. DR for the Revenue supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A).
4. I have considered the submissions of Ld. DR for the Revenue and gone through the orders of the authorities below and material available on record. I find that the only issue in dispute is regarding levy of penalty of Rs. 2,15,400/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (Act). In Page No. 7 of his order, it was noted by the Ld. CIT(A) that assessee has not filed any appeal against the addition made and accordingly accepted the quantum addition made by the AO. Ld. CIT(A) after referring to various judgments including the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Mak Data Vs. CIT 358 ITR 593 (SC), upheld the penalty order. He has given a categorical finding on page No. 13 of his order that assessee has failed to prove the genuineness and bonafides of the transactions in dispute. In the light of the facts of the present case, I find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A). Accordingly, Grounds raised by assessee are rejected.
5. In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed.
