Referred Sections:
Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961.
Section 144/148 of IT Act
Section 132 of I.T.Act

        IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
               DELHI BENCHES "D": DELHI

     BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
                          AND
        SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

                  ITA.No.2571/Del./2016
                Assessment Year 2003-2004

Smt. Abha Gupta,                    The Income Tax Officer,
292, Tagore Park Extn.              Ward ­ 20 (4),
Model Town-I,                vs.,
Delhi ­ 110 009.                    New Delhi.
PAN AAOPG8309G
        (Appellant)                       (Respondent)

                For Assessee :          -None-
                For Revenue : Shri Deepak Garg, Sr. D.R.

             Date of Hearing : 16.10.2019
      Date of Pronouncement : 16.10.2019

                           ORDER

PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.

          This appeal by Assessee has been directed against

the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-34, New Delhi, Dated 25.02.2016

for the A.Y. 2003-2004, challenging the levy of penalty

under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961.


2.         Briefly the facts of the case are that in this case

assessment was completed under section 144/148 of IT Act
                              2
                                              ITA.No.2571/Del./2016
                                              Smt. Abha Gupta, Delhi.


on Dated 31.12.2010 at an income of Rs.23,14,186/-

against   returned   income       of   Rs.1,65,219/-.     Penalty

proceedings were initiated during the course of assessment

proceedings. The brief facts leading to the initiation of

penalty proceedings are that there was a search and seizure

operations under section 132 of I.T.Act conducted on

15.12.2004 in Brij Mohan Gupta group of cases, during the

course of which, certain documents and books of account

were seized. Perusal of these documents revealed that the

assessee is grand daughter of Shri Brij Mohan Gupta, had

advanced cash loan to the tune of Rs.31 lakhs on different

occasions, peak of which was calculated at Rs.20 lakhs and

had earned interest thereon to the tune of Rs.1,48,967/-.

After conducting detailed investigation, the A.O. considered

the peak amount of Rs.20 lakhs and interest thereon at

Rs.1,48,967/- as income of the assessee from undisclosed

sources and accordingly added to her total income. The A.O.

initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(l)(c) of I.T.

Act for concealment of income. The assessee preferred an

appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed
                                3
                                              ITA.No.2571/Del./2016
                                              Smt. Abha Gupta, Delhi.


the appeal of assessee thereby confirming the action of the

A.O.   treating   the   total   amount   of     Rs.21,48,967/-

[Rs.20,00,000/- + Rs.1,48,967/-] as assessee's income from

undisclosed sources. The A.O. issued show cause notice as

to why penalty should not be levied for concealment of

income on the above addition. The assessee did not appear

nor filed any reply. The A.O. in the absence of any response

from the side of the assessee despite giving an opportunity

of being heard, levied the penalty vide Order Dated

09.05.2014. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of

assessee.


3.          The assessee has been notified the date of

hearing through registered post for 04.06.2019, 20.08.2019

and 16.10.2019. The registered cover did not returned back.

The assessee did not make any response to any of the

notices.


4.          The Ld. D.R. relied upon the Orders of the

authorities below.
                               4
                                             ITA.No.2571/Del./2016
                                             Smt. Abha Gupta, Delhi.


5.        After considering the facts of the case in the light

of submissions of the Ld. D.R, we are of the view that no

interference is required in the matter. It is an admitted fact

that seized documents were found relating to assessee and

that entries of seized documents were not disclosed by the

assessee in the return of income. In case, the case would

not be reopened, assessee would not have disclosed the

amount in question. Since in this case there is a specific

documentary evidence found during the course of search

proceedings which clearly shows that assessee has not

disclosed the entries of the cash loan and interest to the

Revenue Department, therefore, it is a fit case for levy of the

penalty. No interference is called for in the matter. Appeal of

assessee stands dismissed.


6.        In the result, appeal of Assessee dismissed.


          Order pronounced in the open Court.


    Sd/-                                Sd/-
   (B.R.R. KUMAR)                      (BHAVNESH SAINI)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                     JUDICIAL MEMBER
Delhi, Dated 16th October, 2019
VBP/-
                              5
                                            ITA.No.2571/Del./2016
                                            Smt. Abha Gupta, Delhi.



Copy to

1.   The appellant
2.   The respondent
3.   CIT(A) concerned
4.   CIT concerned
5.   D.R. ITAT "D" Bench
6.   Guard File


                       // BY Order //




            Asst. Registrar : ITAT Delhi Benches :
                             Delhi.