Section 68, 271 of Income Tax Act, 1961— the assessee has raised several grounds of appeal but the sole issue involved is that the ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 8,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act.

Held that—The observation of the Assessing Officer while making the addition u/s.68 of the Act is that the loan creditor has deposited the amount in cash of Rs. 7,90,000/- before issuing cheque of an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- to the assessee on the same day. On perusal of the bank statement of the creditor filed by the assessee, it is observed that nowhere it is shown that the assessee has any other income routed through the bank. From the above, it can be inferred that the creditor is a man of means and the creditworthiness of the lender is not substantiated by furnishing the required details as called for by the Assessing Officer as per section 68 of the Income tax Act. In our considered view, the AO is justified in making the addition of Rs. 8,00,000/- and ld CIT(A) is fully correct in confirming the same. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed.

The grievance of the assessee is that the ld CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the penalty of Rs. 2,47,000/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

Held that—  The issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M/s SSA' Emerald Meadows (supra). Since in the instant case also the inappropriate words in the penalty notice has not been struck off and the notice does not specify as to under which limb of the provisions, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) is not sustainable and has to be deleted.[DIBYAJYOTI CHEMICALS PVT LTD. VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE -1 (1) , BHUBANESWAR.][2020] 21 ITCD Online (4) [ ITAT CUTTACK]