आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,इंदौर(cid:586)ायपीठ,इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.533 /Ind/2025 (AY: 2018-19)

Rajesh Kumar Rathore बनाम/ Income Tax Officer Galla Mandi Vs. Ward 5, Sehore Sehore (PAN: AAPPR2617B)

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Shri Harshit Choukse, CA &

Shri Kunal Agrawal, CA Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 02.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M.:

This is an Appeal filed by the Assessee under section 253 of the income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity] before this Tribunal as & by way of second appeal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number:-ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1075676936(1) dated

17.04.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is herein after referred to as the “Impugned order”. The relevant assessment year is 2018-19 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018.

2. Factual Matrix

2.1 That as and by way of an order u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act, bearing No. ITBA/PNL/F/271AAC(1)/2023-24/1056519467(1) dated 25.09.2023 a penalty of Rs. 26,65,125/- u/s 271AAC(1) was imposed on the assessee being 10% on tax payable u/s 115BBE of the Act, which is herein after referred to as the “Impugned Penalty Order”. In the impugned penalty order following is recorded-

5. Summary of information / evidence including comments from report of VU/TU, if any.

As the assessee has not responded to any of the notices issued by this office, the notices and letters were sent to the Verify of the unit for service of the same. The Verification Unit served the letter on the assessee. Still, there is no response from the assessee till date.

6. Point wise rebuttal of reply of the assessee including analysis of case law relied upon The assessee has not responded to any of the notices /

letters issued by this office.

7. Conclusion drawn for imposition of penalty a. It is verified from the CPC portal, Insight portal and 360 degree profile, the assessee has not preferred appeal against the assessment order for the year under consideration. In the absence of any verifiable documentary evidence and from the assessee, the AO completed the assessment and it is concluded that the assesee has nothing to explain regarding the nature and source of the cash deposits and hence added to the total income under sec. 69 of the IT Act. Further penalty proceedings u/ s. 271AAC(1) of the Act are being initiated separately for unexplained cash deposits u/ s. 69 r.w.s.

115 BBE of the IT Act.

b) This case was reopened u/ s 147 of the IT Act, 1961 on the basis of the information that the assessee has made cash deposit of Rs. 3,45,00,000/ - in its bank account maintained with ICICI Bank Ltd. during the year. It is further seen that the assessee has not filed his return of income for A.Y. 2018-19. In the absence of return of income and related accounts, the sources of cash deposit in bank account remains unexplained. As the income to the extent of Rs. 3,45,00,000/ - has escaped from the assessment, the same is brought to tax and penalty proceedings under sec. 271AAC(1) are initiated. In view of the above detailed reasons and non compliance from the assessee, I am satisfied that it is a fit case for levy of penalty u/ s 271AAC(1) Aof Income tax Act. Hence, the assessee is liable to pay penalty of 10% percent of the amount of tax payable u/ s 115BBE of the Income tax Act.

8. COMPUTATION OF PENALTY Hence, the assessee is liable to pay penalty of 10% percent of the amount of tax payable u/ s 115BBE of the Income tax Act.

In view of the above reasons, I am satisfied that it is a fit case for levy of penalty u/ s under section 271AAC(1) of the Income tax Act., to the tune of Rs. 26,65,125/ -. The penalty u/ s 271AAC(1) is being imposed after the prior approval of the Competent Authority i.e Range Head as per the