Partha Sarathi Chaudhury ORDER
Inturi Rama Rao, Member (A)
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 6, Pune ('CIT(A) for short) dated 20.12.2017 for the assessment year 2011-12 in confirming levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-
The appellant is an individual engaged in the business of builders and land promoters. The return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 was filed on 31.07.2011 declaring total income of Rs. 11,567/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(3), Pune ('the Assessing Officer') vide order dated 07.01.2014 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act at a total income of Rs. 29,67,390/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 29,50,000/- being cash deposits in SB Account treating the same as unexplained cash deposits rejecting the explanation of the assessee that the cash deposits were made out of cash withdrawals through ATM on various dates and also based on the admission of the assessee that to offer the same as income in order to buy peace of mind and avoid litigation and penalty proceedings. The Assessing Officer made another addition of Rs. 1,472/- being interest from the Savings Bank Accounts.
3. Being aggrieved by the above additions, an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A)-6, Pune, who vide order dated 23.03.2015 while confirming the additions also made further addition of Rs. 9,55,000/- on account of unexplained credit, transfer through ATM. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings by issuing of show-cause notice u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on 07.01.2014 and further show-cause notice was issued on 08.05.2015 and in response to the same, an explanation filed by the assessee stating that the sources for cash deposits were duly explained and mere fact that the appellant had agreed to the addition does not entail levy of penalty. It was further submitted that mere rejection of the explanation does not result in the levy of penalty placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., MANU/SC/0182/2010 : 322 ITR 158 (SC). However, the Assessing Officer had proceeded with the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 25.02.2016 rejecting the explanation of the assessee on the ground that no documentary evidence was filed in support of the withdrawal of cash through ATM and levied penalty of Rs. 9,51,170/-.
4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order confirmed the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.
5. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the appellant is before us in the present appeal.
6. When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice.
7. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR placed reliance on the orders of the lower authorities.
8. We heard the ld. Sr. DR and perused the material on record. The only issue in the present appeal relates to the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. On perusal of the assessment order, it would suggest that disparity between the returned income and assessed income is only on account of following additions made in the assessment:-
(i) Addition on account of unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 29,50,000/-.
(ii) Addition on........