Maninder Singh v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bathinda

110IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA|AT CHANDIGARH he f[TTA-380-2019DECIDED ON: JANUARY 28, 2020 MANINDER SINGH VERSUS APPELLANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARIHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Present:Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate andMr. Shivam Bhardwaj, Advocatefor the appellant. AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral): KK K This appeal has been filed against the order of Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as"Tribunal) upholding the penalty against the appellant. ©?DThe brief tacts are that during assessment it was found that theappellant had a bank account which did not form part of his regular book ofaccount and in that account there was an un-explained cash deposits ofL47,60,000/-. Ultimately when he was asked for the explanation for thesame, he disclosed that out of that a sum of422,10,000/- was explained. Outof money received from his brother regarding which it was stated that hisbrother had sold property worth aboutL7,90,000/- in the year 2008 and keptreinvesting it by giving the same on interest to friends and relatives. In theyear 2010 he handed over a sum of422,10,000/- to the appellant since hepersonally did not have a PAN card. Further a sum of)=3,00,000/- wasexplained to have been received from his brother-in-law also for safecustody. When examined the younger brother trotted out a different story. | ITA No. 380 of 2019 He stated that he had given the money to the appellant because as and whenthe appellant required the same and also had a loan bank account. Theexplanation, such as a cause, was rejected and ultimately a sum ofL12,20,000/- was added to the income by employing ‘peek credit’. It was,thereafter, penalty proceedings were initiated. In the reply filed to the showcause notice of the penalty, the assessee did not offer any explanation whichmay have shown hisbona fidebut only stated that since his income has beenassessed on estimate basis, no penalty could be imposed. After consideringthis reply the penalty order was passed. The same having been upheld theappellant is before this Court. 3The only argument raised by learned counsel is that from thepenalty order it is clear that no further inquiry was made by the assessingofficer while imposing penalty. He has, however, not in a position to denythat no explanation was offered by the appellant for his omission inmentioning this amount and as to why incorrect particulars were mentioned.Section 271 (1)(c) is clearly attracted to the facts of the present case. — 4Resultantly no fault is found.5Dismissed.5Dismissed. IAJAY TEWARI]JUDGE JIAVNEESH JHINGANJUDGE JANUARY 28, 2020sham1. Whether speaking/ reasonedYes/No2. Whether reportableYes/No