RADHEY SHYAM DIXIT,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The facts, in nutshell, are that the Assessing Officer vide order dated 31.12.2010 made u/s. 143(3) made aggregate addition of Rs.22,58,200/- on account of unsecured loans and short term capital gains. Based on these additions, the Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act and imposed a penalty of Rs.6,97,784/- against the assessee representing to equal to tax sought to be evaded. The assessee carried the penalty matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who confirmed the action taken by the Assessing Officer, vide the impugned order. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the quantum of assessment was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) in appeal vide exparte order dated 17.02.2012, which was challenged before the Tribunal in appeal No. 1452/Del/2012. The Tribunal vide order dated 24.07.2015 restored the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issue afresh. Therefore, at this stage, the penalty sustained by the ld. CIT(A) does not stand at all.

On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.

We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the entire material available on record and we find that once the quantum of addition, on the basis of which the impugned penalty was imposed, has been restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A), we have no reason to decide whether the assessee is liable for penalty or not at this stage. Accordingly, the matter relating to penalty is also restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh in the light of quantum appeal pending for disposal before him. The assessee shall be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee deserves to be allowed for statistical purposes.