SONIA VARSHNEY,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 3(4), NOIDA

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.06.2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Noida relating to Assessment Year 2009-10.

1. “The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) is erred in law and facts by way of confirming the Imposition of penalty without giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has erred in deciding Penalty order before deciding the quantum appeal which lying with the same CIT(A) and still pending for disposal. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has erred in imposing Penalty of Rs. 16,44,640/- in respect of tax ought to be evaded on concealed income of Rs.49,85,250/- for unexplained investing in property allegedly treating the same as unexplained Investment, where as appellant was co-owner in the above referred property and full consideration was paid by her husband Deepak Varshney duly verified to the satisfaction of DCIT international taxation NOIDA. in fact order of penalty was passed by learned AO without serving proper notice to the appellant.

4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has further erred in summarily ignoring the contemporary & conclusive evidence filed before him and without making any enquiry from learned AO which has granted stay on demand on the same facts after explaining full details but rejected them without giving any proper reasoning for the same.

5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has erred in ignoring the settled principles of taxing real income as laid down by the judicial precedence in various pronouncements and providing opportunity of being heard to follow the principle of natural justice.

6. Appellant seeks relief by way deleting the penalty imposed by learned AO and wrongly confirmed by learned CIT(A) Noida, because there is no concealment or furnishing of in accurate particulars of income by the appellant at all.”

4. Before us, at the outset, Learned AR submitted that in the present case the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied by the AO on the addition of Rs.49,85,250/- made on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. He submitted that against the aforesaid quantum addition made by the AO, assessee had carried the matter before CIT(A) who vide order dated 14.02.2020 in Appeal No.384/E-filed/2017-18/Noida had deleted the addition made by AO. He pointed to the copy of the relevant order. He thereafter submitted that since the addition itself has been deleted, the penalty on such addition does not survive. He therefore submitted that penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by CIT(A) be deleted.

Order pronounced in the open court on 05.05.2022