Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CAMP BENCH ‘SMC’ AT JALANDHAR
Before: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’ble
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CAMP BENCH ‘SMC’ AT JALANDHAR Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’ble Vice President ITA No.448/Asr./2018 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Sh. Avinash Singh, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/o M/s Jarnail Singh & Sons, Ward-3(1), Milap Chowk, Jalandhar Jalandhar (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AQVPS7827C Assessee by : Sh. J. S. Bhasin, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Ankit Kumar Aggarwal, DR Date of Hearing : 11.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 16.01.2019 ORDER
This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 03.05.2018 of ld. CIT(A)-2,Jalandhar. 2. The only grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to the confirmation of penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) amounting to Rs.1,69,073/-.
Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 16.07.2009 declaring an income of Rs.3,40,690/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Later on, the case was selected for scrutiny. The AO framed the assessment at an income of Rs.9,40,690/- by making an addition of Rs.6,00,000/- on account of deposits made in the saving bank account.
ITA No. 448/Asr./2018 2 Avinash Singh 4. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) who sustained the addition made by the AO. Thereafter, the AO levied the impugned penalty. Against the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal to the ld. CIT(A) who sustained the penalty by observing that the AO was justified in initiating and imposing the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the AO initiated the penalty in the assessment order for concealing the particulars of income while the penalty was levied for furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the penalty initiated was on different limb then the penalty levied.
In his rival submissions, the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below.
I have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealing the particulars of income which is evident from page no. 5 of the assessment order dated 21.11.2011. However, the penalty was levied by the AO for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, it is clear that the initiation of penalty proceedings were on different count then the levy of penalty. In that view of the matter, the penalty levied by the AO on different charge then the initiation of penalty proceedings was not justified and the ld. CIT(A) without appreciating this fact wrongly confirmed the same. Accordingly, the impugned penalty is deleted.
ITA No. 448/Asr./2018 3 Avinash Singh 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 16/01/2019)
Sd/- (N. K. Saini) VICE PRESIDENT Dated: 16/01/2019 *Subodh* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5.DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR