SHRI. SHANKAR SADASHIV DANGAT,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 11(1), PUNE

आदेश / ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order passed by the CIT(A)-1, Pune on 10-12-2019 confirming the penalty of Rs.10,23,903/- imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) in relation to the assessment year 2013-14. 2. Having heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record, it is noticed that the quantum appeal of the assessee came up for consideration before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 22-01-2020, the Tribunal in has restored the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration and decision. Since the matter in the quantum proceedings has gone back to the ld. CIT(A), we are of the considered opinion that it would be in the fitness of things if the matter concerning the penalty on such amount is also sent back to the ld. first appellate authority to be decided in conformity with the view that he canvasses on the additions in the proceedings pursuant to the directions given by the Tribunal. We order accordingly. Our view in restoring the penalty to the ld. CIT(A) is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Mohatram Farooqui vs. CIT (SC) 2010-TIOL-23- SC-IT in which it has been held that if addition is restored to the AO, then penalty should also be restored. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Sanjay Gupta vs. CIT (2014) 366 ITR 18 (Del) has also held that where the quantum has been remanded to the AO, the question of penalty on account of the said amount being treated as undisclosed income, should also be remanded to the AO. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of hearing in such fresh proceedings.