SUJATA SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(3))(4), MUMBAI

O R D E R

PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM:

1 Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.1,90,222/- be deleted." A.Y. 2012-13

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income on 11.07.2012 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.3,69,694/- for the A.Y.2012-13. Thereafter, the assessment was selected for scrutiny and order u/s 143(3) was passed on 09.02.2015 determining total income to the tune of Rs.10,35,540/-. The AO has raised the following addition read as under.:- (i) Deduction claimed on interest payment Rs.1,64,597/- (ii) Low drawings Rs.2,00,000/- (iii) Unexplained Cash Deposit Rs.2,00,000/- (iv) Claim of loss on Car sale and depreciation Rs.1,01,250/- Total Rs.6,65,847/- The penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated and after the reply of the assessee, the penalty in sum of Rs.1,90,222/- was levied. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the order, therefore, the assessee has filed the present appeal before us.

4. We have heard the argument advanced by the Ld. Representative of the revenue and have gone through the case carefully. We find that the penalty was levied by AO on account of disallowance of deduction claim on interest payment, low drawings unexplained cash deposit, claim of loss of car and depreciation. Declining the claim of the assessee nowhere attract the penalty. Penalty is not to liable to be sustainable in view of the law settled in CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158, Naresh Chand Agarwal V. CIT and the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case titled as National Textiles Vs. CIT 2001 164 CTR 2009 (Guj). Accordingly, in view of the above mentioned law (supra), we are of the view that the penalty upon the said addition is not justifiable, therefore, we A.Y. 2012-13 set aside the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue and delete the penalty. Accordingly, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee against the revenue.