Itxa/6832/2010 Of Ishwar Prabhudas Gandhi v. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle 5 Mumbai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.6163 OF 2010ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.6824 OF 2010ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.6825 OF 2010ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.6831 OF 2010ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.6832 OF 2010ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.6833 OF 2010 Ishwar Prabhudas Gandhi ..Appellant. V/s. The Deputy Commissioner of Income TaxCentral Circle-5, Mumbai & Ors...Respondents. Mr. M. Subramanium i/b. V.S. Hadade for the appellant. Mr. P.C. Chhotaray with Ms. Padma Divakar for the respondents. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ.DATED : 9TH OCTOBER, 2012 P.C. :- 1.Whether the ITAT was justified in upholding the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is the 2.Admittedly, the assessee had offered the undisclosed income to tax only after the search and seizure proceedings were initiated by the income tax authorities. The finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is that the assessee has failed to disclose the source from which the undisclosed income was earned. Although, the assessee by his two letters dated 8th September, 2007 and 2nd November, 2007 has stated that he had income from consultation, neither the type of consultation given nor the persons to whom such services were rendered have been furnished. In these circumstances, the decision of the Tribunal in upholding the penalty levied under Section 217(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by following the decision of this Court in the case of Indus Engineering Co. & Anr. V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Investigation) & Ors. reported in [2010] 323 ITR 302 (Bom) cannot be faulted. Accordingly, all the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)