IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH D , MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.5548/M/2013 Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/s. Rajput Realtors P. Ltd., ITO 8(3)(3), 466, Rathodi Village, Mumbai Opp. Bay View Building, Vs. Marve Road, Malad W, Mumbai 4000 095 PAN: AADCR 2485A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Sanjay Kapadia, A.R. Revenue by : Shri B.S. Bist, D.R. Date of Hearing : 17.10.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 17.10.2016 ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: present appeal of assessee is time barred of 82 days and application for condonation of delay along with affidavit has been filed. Considering submissions of assessee which are supported with affidavit, delay in filing appeal is hereby condoned. Now coming to merits of case. 2. present appeal has been preferred by assessee against order dated 26.03.2013 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2007-08 agitating confirmation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act at rate of 300% of tax sought to be evaded. 3. brief facts of case are that assessee had made deposits amounting to Rs.20,20,000/-, sources of which assessee could not prove 2 ITA No.5548/M/2013 M/s. Rajput Realtors P. Ltd. during quantum proceedings. Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as AO), therefore, made additions of said amount into income of assessee and also initiated penalty proceedings. assessee submitted that money in question was received by assessee from various depositors for booking of plots that said money was received through different agents and therefore complete details of parties could not be given. AO, however, held that assessee had failed to furnish required evidences, identity and creditworthiness of parties and genuineness of transactions. He, therefore, levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Act at rate of 300% of tax sought to be evaded which came out at Rs.20,59,794/-. 4. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed said penalty. 5. Before us, Ld. A.R. of assessee has submitted that deposits were made from different parties for booking of plots. However, scheme did not mature and that assessee had refunded amounts to parties. He has further submitted that names of parties were supplied to AO but PAN number of parties could not be supplied as there were various depositors and money was received in cash through various agents. He, therefore, has stated that though additions have been confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) for lack of evidence on part of assessee to prove genuineness of transactions, however, it was not case of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Act. 6. Ld. D.R., on other hand, has relied upon findings of lower authorities. 7. We have heard rival contentions and have also gone through records. undisputed facts of case are that certain deposits were found into account of assessee. assessee has failed to discharge its 3 ITA No.5548/M/2013 M/s. Rajput Realtors P. Ltd. burden to prove source of deposits. assessee could not prove its contentions regarding deposits received from various parties with any credible evidence. Even assessee could not supply addresses and PAN numbers of parties. We, therefore, find justification on part of lower authorities in levying penalty in this case under section 271(1)(c) of Act as it is clear cut case of concealment of income. However, penalty levied at rate of 300% of tax sought to be evaded appears on higher side. Keeping in view of overall facts and circumstances of case, penalty is reduced to 100% of tax sought to be evaded. 8. In result, appeal of assessee is treated as partly allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 17.10.2016. Sd/- Sd/- (Ashwani Taneja) (Sanjay Garg) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 18.10.2016. * Kishore, Sr. P.S. Copy to: Appellant Respondent CIT, Concerned, Mumbai CIT (A) Concerned, Mumbai DR Concerned Bench //True Copy// [ By Order Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai. M/s. Rajput Realtors P. Ltd. v. ITO – 8(3)(3), Mumbai