BISHAN BANSAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- II, GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6450/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2022AY 2013-144 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal deleted the penalty imposed under Section 271AAA as the major part of the additions on which the penalty was based had been deleted by a prior ITAT order. Only a small portion of the addition was sustained.

What were the facts?

A search operation was conducted on the assessee's premises, leading to additions for unexplained jewellery and cash. The assessee's appeal against these additions was partly successful, with the jewellery addition being deleted and the cash addition being sustained.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271AAA can be sustained when the primary additions forming the basis of the penalty have been deleted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271AAA,Section 153A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’ NEW DLEHI

Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA & SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 02.05.2022

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 13.07.2018, impugned herein, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon (in short ‘ld.

Commissioner’) u/s. 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2013-14.

2.

The brief facts relevant for adjudication of this appeal are that a search and seizure operation was carried out on dated 09.05.2012at the residential and office premises of M/s. SRS group of cases including the Assessee/Appellant herein. Thereafter, assessment was completed on dated 27.02.2015 u/s. 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act and the income of the Assessee was determined to the tune of Rs.17,59,123/- as against returned income of Rs.6,39,580/- and additions of Rs.10,69,543/- on account of unexplained jewellery and Rs.50,000/- on account of unexplained cash found from the Assessee during the course of search, were made to the income of the Assessee.

The said additions were challenged by the Assessee before the ld. Commissioner, who vide order dated 21.12.2016 affirmed the additions, as it appears from the impugned order.

Thereafter, the penalty to the tune of Rs.1,11,954/- was imposed u/s. 271AAA of the Act @ 10% of the undisclosed income of Rs.11,19,543/- (10,69,543 +50,000).

The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the imposition of penalty before the ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order dated 13.07.2018, affirmed the levy of penalty, against which the Assessee is in appeal before us.

3.

Heard the parties and perused the material available on record.

At the outset, it was submitted by the ld. AR that the Hon’ble ITAT vide order dated 30.01.2020 passed in has deleted the addition of Rs.10,69,543/- on account of jewellery found during the search operation and affirmed the addition of Rs.50,000/- on account of unexplained cash found during the course of search. The ld. DR did not refute the said factual claim of the Assessee.

4.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, as the major part of the additions, on the basis of which penalty was imposed and affirmed by the ld. Commissioner, has already been deleted by the Hon’ble Tribunal vide order dated 30.01.2020 referred to above,and sustained the addition to the tune of Rs.50,000/- only out of Rs.11,19,543/-, therefore, we do not find any justification and/or substantial reason to sustain the penalty at any length. Consequently, the penalty under challenge stands deleted.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 25/05/2022.

More judgments on Section 271AAA

All 606 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271AAA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →