Vinod Singh v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(1) Jaipur Rajasthan

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 144/2019 Vinod Singh S/o Let. Ram Gopal Singh, P. No. 13-14 Om Colony,Delhi By Pass, Jai Singh Pura, Khore, Jaipur 302002 ----Appellant Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(1) Jaipur Rajasthan ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ishwar TiwariFor Respondent(s): Ms. Jaya P. Pathak withMr. Sandeep Pathak HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Judgment 07/02/2024-Avneesh Jhingan, J (ORAL): 1.This appeal is filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act,1961 (for short ‘the Act’) against the order dated 20.06.2019 ofIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘ITAT’), Jaipur Bench,Jaipur dismissing the appeal and upholding the penalty underSection 271 (1)(c) of the Act. 2.The brief facts of the case are that the appellant forassessment year 2010-2011 filed an income tax return showingincome of Rs.1,45,245/-. The appellant had depositedRs.25,85,000/- cash in the saving bank account with StandardChartered Bank, MI Road, Jaipur, the case was taken in scrutiny.The assessment was finalized on 19.03.2013 under Section 143(3)of the Act. After giving the benefits of withdrawals and for theopening cash balance an addition of Rs.15,79,000/- was made as appellant failed to explain the source. Addition of interest receivedof Rs.28,418/- on Bank deposit and of Rs.5,00,000/- invested inshare and mutual fund was made. 3.The Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) while partlyallowing the appeal of the appellant upheld the addition ofunexplained cash deposit and of Bank interest but gave relief withregard to investment made in shares and mutual funds to the tuneof Rs.3,30,000/- against the claim made by the appellant ofRs.5,00,000/-. The appellant failed in the quantum of appealbefore the ITAT. The proceedings initiated under Section 271(1)(c)of the Act culminated in imposition of penalty of Rs.6,50,000/-.vide order dated 14.03.2016. The first appeal was dismissed on16.11.2018 and the appeal before the Tribunal met the same fateon 20.06.2019. Hence the present appeal. 4.The counsel for the appellant submits that the addition wasmade on estimate basis by taking peak balance of the cashdeposits hence, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act isnot sustainable. 5. The counsel for the respondent defends the impugned ordersubmits that the quantum addition has attained finality. Theadditions were made on the basis of the unexplained cashdeposits made in the Bank account and benefit of withdrawalswere given. It is further argued that the appellant had notdeclared the amount deposited in the bank account and also theinterest received in saving bank account. 6.Nine substantial questions of law have been framed,however, the only issue which arises in the present case is as towhether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is sustainable? 6.The appellant had not filed income tax returns for yearspreceding to AY 2010-2011. As per the record produced by theappellant a sum of Rs.12,75,000/- was deposited in cash in thebank account between 11.06.2009 till 19.06.2009 and there wasno withdrawal in between. Thereafter during the assessment year,cash deposits were made. This information with regard to cashdeposit and the interest accruing on the saving bank accountmaintained by the appellant with Standard Chartered Bank wasnot declared in the returns filed. Appellant failed to explain thesource of cash deposited and the addition made was upheld tillITAT and has attained finality. The contention raised that theaddition has been made on presumption is ill-founded. Theaddition of the cash deposits was made after deducting thewithdrawal relying upon the material available with thedepartment and after considering the explanation of the appellant. 7.In challenge to the penalty order, no explanation of the cashdeposits made. The reply filed was that there is no concealment ofincome and there is no unexplained income. No question of lawmuch less substantial question of law is involved. 8.The appeal is dismissed. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Chandan/Himanshu/52 Whether ReportableYes/No