NAMDEO VITTHAL KHATALE,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 14(3),, PUNE

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.04/PUN/2019 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Namdeo Vitthal Khatale, Vs. ITO, Ward- 1(3), Pune. At Post- Igatpuri, Gavtha, Tal.- Igatpuri, Dist.- Nashik-422403 PAN : BLVPK6644R Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri S. P. Walimbe Date of hearing : 19.07.2022 Date of pronouncement : 20.07.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nashik [‘the CIT(A)’] dated 14.11.2018 for the assessment year 2010-11 confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.2,50,000/-. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual and had not filed the return of income u/s 139 of the

2 ITA No.04/PUN/2019 Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) nor responded to notice u/s 148 of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the appellant along with two others, namely, Shri Harishchandra V. Khatale and Shri Kisan V. Khatale entered into an agreement for sale of property situated at Igatpuri, Nashik for sum of Rs.65,36,000/- and the appellant had received his share of consideration of Rs.12,50,000/- and had not disclosed the share of consideration in the return of income nor cooperated with the assessment proceedings. Accordingly, the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Nashik (‘the Assessing Officer’) completed the assessment vide order dated 26.03.2014 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144 of the Act by bringing to tax the consideration of Rs.12,50,000/-. Even on appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the action of the Assessing Officer was confirmed. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer had proceeded with levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act holding that the assessee is guilty for concealment of particulars of income and levied a penalty of Rs.2,50,000/- vide order dated 29.09.2014 passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

3 ITA No.04/PUN/2019 3. Being aggrieved by the order of penalty, an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding that since in the quantum appeal the addition was sustained. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 5. When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of this matter after hearing the ld. Sr. DR. 6. We heard the ld. Sr. DR and perused the material on record. The issue in the present appeal relates to the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. On perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A), we find that the ld. CIT(A) had confirmed the levy of penalty by citing that in the quantum appeal, the addition was sustained. It is settled position of law that mere addition does not entail levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, the reasoning given by the ld. CIT(A) cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty of Rs.2,50,000/- levied u/s

4 ITA No.04/PUN/2019 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee stands allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced on this 20th day of July, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 20th July, 2022. Sujeet आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT(A)-1, Nashik. 4. The Pr. CIT-1, Nashik. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A” ब�च, 5. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.