Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, HON’BLE & SHRI WASEEM AHMED HON’BLE
आदेश/O R D E R
PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against order of ld.CIT(A)-5, Ahmedabad dated 11.9.2017 passed for the assessment year 2011-12.
Solitary grievance of the assessee is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming penalty of Rs.2.50 lakhs which was imposed by the AO under section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2 3. Brief facts of the case are that a search under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out in Sanghvi Group of cases on 9.3.2011. Subsequently, the assessee filed return of income under section 153A of the Act on 1.2.2012 declaring total income of Rs.13,86,570/-. In an assessment framed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153B(1)(b) of the Act, the total income of the assessee was determined at Rs.41,43,100/- after making various additions including addition of Rs.25.00 lakhs under section 69 on account of unexplained investment. This addition was confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). Thereafter, the ld.AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAA of the Act qua addition of Rs.25.00 lakhs made under section 69 and imposed penalty of Rs.2,50,000/-, which was confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). The assessee is now before the Tribunal against imposition of penalty.
The ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the impugned addition of Rs.25.00 lakhs has been deleted by the Tribunal in the quantum appeal in IT(SS)A.No.44/Ahd/2015. The Tribunal vide order dated 17.12.2019 deleted the addition, and therefore, there is no scope for imposition of penalty under section 271AAA of the Act by the Revenue authorities. On the other hand, the ld.DR could not dispute this factual position of the case.
5 With the assistance of the ld.representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. It emerges out from the record that addition of Rs.25 lakhs was made by the AO on the ground that the assessee has made unexplained investment in purchase of a bungalow. This addition stands deleted at the end of the Tribunal on the ground that his father Shri Dhirajlal V. Sanghi made a disclosure e of Rs.10.66 crores and this amount of Rs.25 lakhs formed part of that total disclosure. Therefore, addition on which the impugned penalty has been imposed having been extinguished, impugned penalty does not survive.
3 We cancel the impugned penalty imposed under section 271AAA of the Act, and allow the ground of appeal.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 21st January, 2020 at Ahmedabad.