IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC Bench, Mumbai Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) I.T.A. No. 3239/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year 2009-10) Sargam Foods Pvt. Ltd. CIT(A)-14 69, Yusuf Meharali Vs. Mumbai Road, Masjid Mumbai-400 003. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No.AACS5364C Assessee by None Department by Shri Kailash Gaikwad Date of Hearing 13.10.2016 Date of Pronouncement 13.10.2016 ORDER assessee has filed this appeal challenging order dated 25.3.2015 passed by Ld CIT(A)-14, Mumbai confirming penalty of Rs.6,79,800/- levied by AO u/s 271(1)(c) of Act in AY 2009-10. 2. None appeared on behalf of assessee even though notice of hearing was sent by registered post on more than one occasion. Hence I proceed to dispose of appeal ex-parte, without presence of assessee. 3. I heard Ld D.R and perused record. relevant facts are that assessee was subjected to survey operations u/s 133A of Act on 31.7.2008. During course of survey, excess stock of Rs.20,36,407/- and cash shortage of Rs.1,31,951/- were noticed. Accordingly assessee agreed to offer sum of Rs.22,00,000/- as its additional income and also issued cheques towards tax liability. But cheques were dishonoured and assessee also did not declare amount in return of income. Hence AO reopened 2 assessment u/s 148 and in return filed in response thereto also, assessee did not declare additional income of Rs.22.00 lakhs. Subsequently, when assessing officer asked queries about additional income, assessee filed revised return of income on 28-3-2013 offering additional income. AO completed assessment by accepting income declared in revised return of income. 4. AO initiated penalty proceedings and in response thereto, assessee submitted additional income was offered to buy peace from department and not to litigate in this matter further. AO was not convinced with explanations and hence levied penalty of Rs.6,79,800/- u/s 271(1)(c) of Act. Ld CIT(A) also confirmed same by following decision rendered by Hon ble Supreme Court in case of MAK Data Ltd (2014)(1 SCC 674). 5. I have gone through order passed by Ld CIT(A) and I notice that Ld CIT(A) has passed reasoned order by placing reliance on decision rendered by Hon ble Supreme Court in case of MAK Data Ltd (supra). Before me, assessee has not filed any material to show that order passed by Ld CIT(A) was not in accordance with law. Hence I do not find any reason to interfere with his order. Accordingly I confirm order passed by Ld CIT(A). 6. In result, appeal filed by assessee is dismissed. Order has been pronounced in Court on 13.10.2016 Sd/- (B.R.BASKARAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated : 13/10/2016 Copy of Order forwarded to : 1. Appellant 3 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai PS Sargam Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT(A) - 14, Mumbai