DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-II, BHOPAL vs. SHRI RAJU PERUMAL, BHOPAL

BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 DCIT(Central)-II Shri Raju Perumal, बनाम/ Siddarth Mount View Villas, Bhopal Vs. Chuna Bhatti, Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue) PAN: ABZPP3789P Revenue by Shri Puneet Kumar, Sr. DR Respondent by Shri S. S. Deshpande, CA Date of Hearing: 10.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 12.12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M: This appeal at the instance of Revenue pertaining to A.Y. 2014-15 is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Bhopal, (in short ‘CIT’), dated 28.03.2018 which is arising out of the order u/s 271D/271E of the Income Tax Act 1961(hereinafter called as the ‘Act’) framed on 31.05.2017 by ACIT- (Central), Bhopal.

Shri Raju Perumal ITANo.424/Ind/2018 2. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271D of Rs.90,00,000/- out of total penalty levied u/s 271D of Rs.94,00,000/- by the Addl. CIT(Central), Range, Bhopal for violation of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961.”

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271E of Rs.90,00,000/- out of total penalty levied u/s 271E of Rs.94,00,000/- by the Addl. CIT(Central), Range, Bhopal for violation of section 269T of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

3. The appellant reserves his right to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal on or before the date, the appeal is finally heard for disposal.”

3. From perusal of the records and the grounds we observe that the issue relates to penalty levied u/s 271D & 271E of the Act at Rs.90,00,000/- & Rs.94,00,000/- by the ld. Assessing Officer in the consolidated order dated 31.05.2017.Against the levy of both penalties assessee had filed separate appeals before the Ld. CIT(A), who passed a consolidated order dated 28.03.2018 deleting both the penalties.

4. Technically revenue should have filed separate appeals challenging the deletion of penalty u/s 271D & 271E of the Act however, the revenue has filed single appeal challenging both the penalties. This technical defect cannot be cured at this stage.

Shri Raju Perumal ITANo.424/Ind/2018 liberty to file separate appeals if it intents to challenge the levy of penalty u/s 271D & 271E of the Act however, it is clarified that for the purpose of counting limitation of filing of fresh separate appeals period elapsed in the present proceeding would be excluded.