IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 159/Mds/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, v. Dr.Graham Daniel, Ward I(2), Gandhi Nagar, No.1, Pattamangala New Street, Kumbakonam. Mayiladuthurai 609 806. PAN : ADWPG2696M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri A.V.Shreekanth, JCIT Respondent by : Shri A.S.Sriraman, Advocate Date of Hearing : 30.08.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 23.09.2016 ORDER PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal of revenue is directed against order of CIT(A), Tiruchirapalli dated 24.10.2013 and pertains to Assessment 2 I.T.A. No.159/Mds/2014 Year 2009-10 confirming penalty levied by Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c). 2. Shri A.V.Shreekanth, learned representative for department submitted that assessee is medical practitioner by profession. During year under consideration, Assessing Officer found that there was credit in savings bank account of assessee with Axis Bank, T.Nagar Branch, Chennai to extent of Rs. 11,50,000/-. assessee has also made cash deposit of Rs.38,39,645/-. assessee could not produce any material for source of deposits made in bank account. In absence of any material, assessing officer found that assessee concealed particulars of income and accordingly, levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of Act. assesee subsequently claimed that source of funds were from deceased parents. However, no material was filed either before assessing officer of before CIT(A) to indicate that source of funds was from his father. Accordingly, assessing officer found that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars to extent of Rs.50,66,418/- and accordingly levied penalty. CIT(A) however deleted penalty without any reasonable cause. fact that assessee deposited money in bank is not dispute and same was not 3 I.T.A. No.159/Mds/2014 disclosed in return of income filed by assessee. Therefore, CIT(A) ought not to have deleted penalty levied by assessing officer. 3. On contrary, Shri A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel for assessee submitted that assessee explained before assessing officer that source for making deposit is from their deceased parents. explanation offered by assessee may not be proved by assessee. However, it was not found to be false by assessing officer. According to learned counsel, when assessee offered explanation with regard to source for making deposit and assessing officer has not found same to be false, it cannot be said that there was concealment of income within meaning of Section 271(1)(c) of Act. Even though claim made by assessee is not supported by any material, it cannot be said that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars. In absence of any inquiry conducted by assessing officer to show that explanation offered by assessee was false, CIT(A) has rightly deleted penalty levied by assessing officer. 4. We have considered rival submissions on either side and also perused material available on record. assessee is medical practitioner by profession. Admittedly, there are deposits in 4 I.T.A. No.159/Mds/2014 bank account. assessee claimed before assessing officer that source for deposit was from their deceased parents. assessing officer found that claim of assessee was not substantiated by material evidence. 5. We have carefully gone through provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act. Section 271(1)(c) clearly says that if assessee concealed any part of his income or furnished any inaccurate particulars of his income, assessing officer or commissioner may levy penalty. Explanation 1 to Section 271 (c) further clarifies that in respect of any facts material to computation of total income, if assessee fails to offer explanation or offers explanation which is found to be false by assessing officer, then, penalty can be levied. In case before us, assessee explained before assessing officer that source for making deposit is from their deceased parents. This explanation of assessee as rightly submitted by learned counsel for assessee was not found to be false. Therefore, this Tribunal is of considered opinion that CIT(A) has rightly deleted penalty levied by assessing officer. 5 I.T.A. No.159/Mds/2014 6. In view of above, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with order of CIT(A) and accordingly, same is confirmed. 7. In result, appeal of revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on 23rd September, 2016 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (A. Mohan Alankamony) (N.R.S. Ganesan) Accountant Member Judicial Member Chennai, Dated, 23rd September, 2016. sp. Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT, 5. DR 6. GF. Income-tax Officer, Ward-I(2), Kumbakonam v. Graham Daniel