110 IN HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-380-2019 DECIDED ON: JANUARY 28, 2020 MANINDER SINGH APPELLANT VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Present: Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate and Mr. Shivam Bhardwaj, Advocate for appellant. AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral): This appeal has been filed against order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal) upholding penalty against appellant. 2. brief facts are that during assessment it was found that appellant had bank account which did not form part of his regular book of account and in that account there was un-explained cash deposits of `47,60,000/-. Ultimately when he was asked for explanation for same, he disclosed that out of that sum of `22,10,000/- was explained. Out of money received from his brother regarding which it was stated that his brother had sold property worth about `7,50,000/- in year 2008 and kept reinvesting it by giving same on interest to friends and relatives. In year 2010 he handed over sum of `22,10,000/- to appellant since he personally did not have PAN card. Further sum of `3,00,000/- was explained to have been received from his brother-in-law also for safe custody. When examined younger brother trotted out different story. SHAM SUNDER 2020.01.31 09:05 I attest to authenticity and integrity of this document HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 380 of 2019 -2- He stated that he had given money to appellant because as and when appellant required same and also had loan bank account. explanation, such as cause, was rejected and ultimately sum of `12,20,000/- was added to income by employing 'peek credit'. It was, thereafter, penalty proceedings were initiated. In reply filed to show cause notice of penalty, assessee did not offer any explanation which may have shown his bona fide but only stated that since his income has been assessed on estimate basis, no penalty could be imposed. After considering this reply penalty order was passed. same having been upheld appellant is before this Court. 3. only argument raised by learned counsel is that from penalty order it is clear that no further inquiry was made by assessing officer while imposing penalty. He has, however, not in position to deny that no explanation was offered by appellant for his omission in mentioning this amount and as to why incorrect particulars were mentioned. Section 271 (1)(c) is clearly attracted to facts of present case. 4. Resultantly no fault is found. 5. Dismissed. [AJAY TEWARI] JUDGE [AVNEESH JHINGAN] JUDGE JANUARY 28, 2020 sham 1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No 2. Whether reportable : Yes / No SHAM SUNDER 2020.01.31 09:05 I attest to authenticity and integrity of this document HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH Maninder Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bathinda