DR JASLEEN KAUR,,JALANDHAR vs. A.C.I.T, CIRCLE - II, JALNDHAR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.376/ASR/2017 Assessment Year : 2007-08 Dr. Jasleen Kaur, Vs. ACIT, C/o M/s Orthonova Hospital, Circle-II, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar. Jalandhar. PAN: ABIPK6994L (Appellants) (Respondents)

Assessee By : Shri Surinder Mahajan, CA Department By : Shri S.S. Negi

Date of Hearing : 19.02.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 20.02.2018

ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 24.04.2017, confirming the penalty of

ITA No.376/ASR/2017

Rs.6,73,200/- imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the

Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) in relation to the

Assessment Year 2007-08.

action was taken u/s 132 of the Act at the business-cum-residential

premises of the assessee. Based on certain incriminating material found

during the course of search, the Assessing Officer made an addition of

Rs.30 lac. Thereafter, penalty was imposed with reference to such

addition. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition in quantum proceedings.

However, the Tribunal overturned the order of the ld. CIT(A). The ld.

AR submitted that the assessee challenged the confirmation of addition

before the Hon'ble High Court, which has remitted the matter back to

the ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the matter. Now the assessee is in

appeal against the order confirming the penalty imposed w.r.t. the

addition, which stands restored to the ld. CIT(A).

record. It is noticed that the foundation for the instant penalty is the

ITA No.376/ASR/2017

quantum addition which has been eventually restored by the Hon’ble

High Court to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for taking a fresh decision in

accordance with the law. Under these circumstances, 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 be decided in

conformity with the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) in the proceedings

pursuant to the directions given by the Hon’ble High Court. 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. We, therefore,

set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the file of the ld.

CIT(A) for determining the question of imposition or otherwise of the

penalty on this issue, after deciding the point on merits. Needless to say, 3

ITA No.376/ASR/2017

the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of hearing in this

regard.

The order pronounced in the open court on 20.02.2018.

Sd/- Sd/-

[N.K. CHOUDHRY] [R.S. SYAL] JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT

Dated, 20th February, 2018. dk Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, AMRITSAR.