Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH
Before: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri TR Senthil Kumar
Appellant by : Ms. Rachana Khandhar, A.R. Respondent by : Shri J L Bhatia, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 10-02-2022 Date of pronouncement : 15-02-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-
The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee for confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ahmedabad, (in short referred to as CIT(A)), dated 27-03-2019, u/s. 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y) 2012-13.
At the outset itself, ld. D.R. mentioned that in the quantum proceedings relating to the assessee for the impugned year before the ITAT, all the additions were restored back to the A.O. adjudication afresh. He conceded Page No 2 Shri Tariqrashid M. Munshi vs. ITO therefore that in the circumstances the penalty did not survive. Copy of the order of the ITAT in dated 13.12.2020 was placed before us. In this backdrop, we shall proceed to adjudicate the present appeal before us.
Brief facts being that in the assessment proceedings u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, the following additions were made: (i) Unexplained Cash credit of Rs. 33,31,563/- (ii) Unexplained Creditors of Rs. 3,04,500/- (iii) Unexplained addition in capital of Rs. 1,40,285/-.
3.1 Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) were also initiated. The penalty proceedings remained unattended on behalf of the assessee and the A.O., noting that the impugned additions stood confirmed by the First Appellate Authority,i.e Ld. CIT(A), held that it was a fit case for levy of penalty since the assessee had knowingly and deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly penalty @ 100% of the tax evaded on the aforestated additions amounting to Rs. 11,66,892/- was levied on the assessee.
The assessee preferred appeal against this order of the A.O. before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein also we have noted that the proceedings remained unattended on behalf of the assessee and accordingly the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the A.O. Before us, since the fact of the additions made in the quantum proceedings having been restored back to the A.O. by the ITAT have been brought to our notice, the additions as on date no longer survive and therefore as rightly admitted by the Ld. D.R. there was no case for levy of penalty in the Page No 3 Shri Tariqrashid M. Munshi vs. ITO facts and circumstances. The order passed by the A.O. levying penalty of Rs. 11,66,892/- is therefore set aside and appeal of the Assessee is allowed.
In effect, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed.