ACIT 19(2), MUMBAI vs. DEEPAK B. SHAH, MUMBAI

Shri Deepak B. Shah Assessment Year: 2006-07 2. We have carefully heard the rival submissions and perused relevant material on record. Our adjudication to the subject matter of appeal would be as given in succeeding paragraphs.

The facts leading to imposition of penalty are that the assessee was assessed for the year u/s 143(3) r.w.s. on 147 on 14/03/2014 wherein it was saddled with addition of Rs.613.09 Lacs u/s 69A, being undisclosed income in bank account held by the assessee in HSBC Bank, Geneva, Switzerland. Upon further appeal, Ld. CIT(A) partly confirmed the same to the extent of Rs.306.54 Lacs. Consequently, penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271(1)(c) which culminated into imposition of impugned penalty of Rs.103.18 Lacs by Ld. AO vide penalty order dated 12/06/2015. Aggrieved the assessee contested the penalty before Ld. CIT(A).

During appellate proceedings, it transpired that the quantum addition u/s 69A as sustained by Ld. CIT(A) stood deleted by Tribunal in & 6066/Mum/2014 order dated 30/10/2018. The Ld. CIT(A) opined that since quantum additions stood deleted, the penalty would have no legs to stand as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.C.Builders (136 Taxmann.com 481). Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us.

Before us, it is undisputed position that quantum additions against which penalty was levied, has already been deleted by the Tribunal. In such a case, as rightly noted by Ld. CIT(A), the impugned penalty would not survive. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere in the impugned order.

The appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced on 24th May, 2021.