IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
               DELHI BENCH "SMC" NEW DELHI
     BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA : ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

                       ITA No. 5996/Del/2012
                       Asstt. Yr: 2005-06
Niranjan Kumar Jain                 Vs. Income-tax Officer,
S/0 Sh. Madho Ram, 464/104,               Ward 1(1), Muzaffarnagar.
Suman Vihar, Muzaffarnagar.
PAN: AMFPK 9993 F

( Appellant )                               ( Respondent )

            Appellant by        :     Shri Ankit Gupta Adv.
            Respondent by       :     Shri Amal Garg Sr. DR.

            Date of hearing     :     12-06-2014
            Date of order       :     11-07-2014.

                                ORDER

PER S.V. MEHROTRA, A.M::

      This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order dated 29-8-
2012 passed by the ld. CIT(A), Muzaffarnagar in appeal no. 08/12-13,
relating to A.Y. 2005-06.
2.    Brief facts of the case are that notice u/s 148 was issued on the basis
of information with the AO that the assessee had made a deposit of Rs. 3
lacs with Sh. Amit Singhal Prop. M/s JKM Steels, Patel Nagar,
Muzaffarnagar, which was not apparently explained from the capital
account. In the reasons recorded, the assessing officer has observed that the
assessee filed a reply on 30-3-2010 along with a copy of his account in the
books of M/s JKM Steels and copy of bank a/c with Central Bank of India,
Nai Mandi, Muzaffarnagar. The bank a/c showed deposit of Rs. 3 lacs in
                                      2


cash on 21-12-2004 and a cheque of Rs. 3 lacs was issued on the same day.
The assessing officer after considering the assessee's detailed submissions,
in which assessee had, inter alia, pointed out that he had himself disclosed
interest income from M/s JKM Steels of Rs. 8219/- and had also claimed
TDS of Rs. 838/-, made the addition as under:
            Income offered vide reply dt. 14-10-2010      Rs. 8,219
            Unexplained deposit u/s 69 on a/c of
            Unexplained cash deposit in bank              Rs. 3,00,000

2.1.   Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A) who
confirmed the addition of Rs. 25,382/- and agreed that prima facie the
amount of Rs. 2 lacs was unexplained in the hands of assessee for the
relevant accounting period 2005-06. Thus, the assessing officer was directed
to take a remedial action in case of assessee for A.Y. 2006-07.
2.2.   The assessing officer levied a penalty of Rs. 33,330/- apropos the
addition of Rs. 25,382/- confirmed by ld. CIT(A).
2.3.   Ld. CIT(A) after considering the facts of the case restricted the
penalty to 100%, inter alia, observing that the assessee had failed to adduce
any satisfactory explanation in rebuttal of the presumption that unexplained
investment of Rs. 25,382/- represented his unexplained money.
3.     I have considered the submissions of both the parties and have
perused the record of the case. The assessee had filed its return of income
declaring income of Rs. 79,969/- and admitted that there was mistake of not
including the interest income from M/s JKM Steels in course of assessment
proceedings only of Rs. 8219/- and accordingly addition of Rs. 8219/- was
made. As regards the deposit of Rs. 3 lacs with M/s JKM Steels, the assessee
had filed detailed chart of capital a/c, which has been reproduced at pages 5
& 6 of assessment order, in which the closing capital for A.Y. 2005-06 has
                                       3







been shown at Rs. 3,00,242/-, which included the revised return of Rs.
88,188/-.
3.1.   The assessing officer did not accept the assessee's contention because
he noticed that the account was opened with Central Bank of India, Nai
Mandi, Muzaffarnagar on 17-6-2004 with deposit of Rs. 5,000/- and after a
gap of six months a sum of Rs. 3 lacs in cash was deposited in the account
and cheque for the sum of Rs. 3 lacs of M/s JKM Steels was issued on the
same date. He pointed out that no withdrawal was made from the account till
20-1-2006 but     still a sum of Rs. 2 lacs in cash was deposited in the bank
account.
3.2.   Ld. CIT(A) after considering the details of the capital account, filed
by the assessee, has pointed out that to the extent of Rs. 25,382/- there was
no detail, even after giving of maximum possible benefit of such
accumulation.
3.3.   The assessee has not been able to rebut the findings of ld. CIT(A).
The assessee has no explanation for excess deposit of Rs. 25,382/-. I,
therefore, confirm the order of ld. CIT(A).






4.     In the result assessee's appeal is dismissed.
Order pronounced in open court on 11-07-2014.

                                                      Sd/-
                                               ( S.V. MEHROTRA )
                                               ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 11-07-2014.
MP
Copy to :
  1. Assessee
  2. AO
  3. CIT
  4. CIT(A)      5. DR.
4