RATHI BARS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC-16, NEW DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI

SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 8062/Del/2019 Assessment Years: 2015-16

Rathi Bars Limited, Vs. ACIT- CC-16, A-24/7, Mohan Co- New Delhi operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-1100 44

PAN :AAACR0737N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Shri Ramkumar Verma, Manager Department by Ms. Maimum Alam, Sr. DR

Date of hearing 21.09.2022 Date of pronouncement 21.09.2022

ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 31.07.2019

of learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-26, New Delhi,

2 ITA No.8062/Del./2019

confirming penalty imposed under Section 271AAB of the Income-

Tax Act,1961 pertaining to assessment year 2015-16.

record. As could be seen from the facts on record, while completing

the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act, the assessing officer

made the following additions:

i) Undisclosed income on sales made to Rs.23,7535 M/s. Hari Iron India Ltd.;

ii) Undisclosed income on sales made out of Rs.2,45,856 books; iii) Difference in stocks: Rs.58,40,136

Commissioner (Appeals). Learned Commissioner (Appeals) granted

partial relief to the assessee by sustaining the additions made on

account of difference in stocks to the extent of Rs.17,67,071. Against

the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), assessee preferred an

appeal before the Tribunal. However, during the pendency of the

assessee’s appeal before the Tribunal, the assessing officer passed an

3 ITA No.8062/Del./2019

order on 30.03.2019 imposing penalty of Rs.12,21,997 under Section

271AAB of the Act on the additions remaining after order of learned

Commissioner (Appeals). The penalty so imposed was also confirmed

by learned Commissioner (Appeals).

the additions sustained by learned Commissioner (Appeals), the

Tribunal vide order dated 28.02.2022 in ITA No.1327/Del/2018 and

Ors. has deleted the two additions out of the three made by the

assessing officer. In other words, the Tribunal deleted the additions of

Rs.23,735 and Rs.2,45,856. In so far as addition of Rs.17,67,071 made

on account of difference in stock, the Tribunal has restored the issue to

learned Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo adjudication. Thus, in

view of the changed scenario because of the decision of the Tribunal

in the quantum proceedings, in our opinion, the issue relating to

imposition of penalty under Section 271AAB of the Act has to be

restored back to the assessing officer as factual position relating to the

additions based on which penalty was imposed have changed.

Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of learned

Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the matter to the assessing officer

4 ITA No.8062/Del./2019

for initiating penalty proceedings afresh, if warranted, depending upon

the status of the addition made on account of difference in stock after

culmination of the appellate proceedings.

officer must extend adequate opportunity of being heard to the

assessee by following the procedure laid down in the Statute.