KULTAR SINGH ,UDHAM SINGH NAGAR vs. ITO- 1(4), RUDRAPUR
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, [ DELHI BENCH : “DB ‘SMC’ ” NEW DELHI ]
Before: DR. B. R. R. KUMAR & SH. YOGESH KUMAR U.S.
PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Haldwani [hereinafter referred to CIT (Appeals) dated 12.03.2019 for assessment year 2012-13.
2 ITA No. 36/DDN/2019 Kultar Singh Vs. ITO
The assessee has raised the following substantive grounds of appeal:-
“1. The Order passed by learned CIT (Appeals) is based on mere
surmise that “effort is being made (on part of the appellant) to co-
relate the deposits in the bank account with withdrawals made by
the appellant 08 months ago”, which is factually incorrect. These
deposits genuinely relate to withdrawals by the appellant
No Law of land restricts the assessee to deposit the same
amount which was earlier withdrawn. It is as per the understanding
and requirement of particular assessee/ individual;
No Cogent material has been provided to the appellant by the
learned Assessing Officer to suggest that the amount deposited does
not relate to the amount withdrawn. In this connection it is
submitted that the appellant relies on a number of decided cases
wherein it has been held that the adjudicating officer must have
relevant material on record in order to reject the explanation
submitted by the assessee. The details of such decided cases have
been provide in the grounds of appeal herein;
None of the case laws/ material has been provided by
learned Assessing Officer or by Learned Cit (Appeals) where the
addition was confirmed merely for the reason that the amount
3 ITA No. 36/DDN/2019 Kultar Singh Vs. ITO
withdrawn and deposited are not “same amount”;
Assessee has no other source of income except agricultural
income and therefore by no means it can be concluded that the
amount deposited is from a taxable source or from a source other
than the amount earlier withdrawn;
No document/ information or material is available with the
Deptt. To suggest/ conclude that the amounts deposited pertain to
any other source/ activity carried on by the appellant;
In the present appeal, the assessee is aggrieved by the order of penalty order dated 28/09/2015 passed u/s 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (‘Act’ for short) and also order of Ld.CIT(A) dated 12/03/2019 confirming the order of penalty thereby dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in the quantum appeal in ITA No. 35/DDN/2019, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 31/12/2020 has remanded the issue to the file of the A.O. for de-novo consideration, therefore, the present appeal deserves to be allowed and the penalty order liable to be set aside.
The Ld. DR has not disputed the above facts, but submitted that the liberty may be reserved to the A.O. to initiate fresh penalty proceedings if the A.O. makes any additions after the Order of remand by the Tribunal.
4 ITA No. 36/DDN/2019 Kultar Singh Vs. ITO
Considering the above facts and circumstances, in view of the order made in ITA No. 35/DDN/2019 dated 31/12/2020 wherein the Co-ordinate Bench has remanded the issue to the file of the A.O. for de-novo consideration, the impugned penalty order and the impugned order of the CIT (A) are liable to be set aside. Needless to say, that the Ld. A.O. is at liberty to initiate fresh penalty proceedings in accordance with law after passing fresh assessment order.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on : 03.01.2023.
Sd/- Sd/- (B. R. R. KUMAR) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) AC.COUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated : 03/01/2023
*MEHTA/R.N, Sr. PS*
