SH. ANAND KUMAR,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ITO, MUZAFFARNAGAR

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.11.2013 of the CIT(Appeals), Muzaffarnagar relating to A. Y. 2005-06.

This appeal was earlier dismissed by the Tribunal for non prosecution. Subsequently the Tribunal vide order dated 23.02.2018 in M.A. No.337/Del/2016 recalled its earlier order. Hence, this is a recalled matter.

There is a delay in filing of this appeal by 184 days. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed the condonation application explaining the reasons for delay which is due to the accident occurred to him. After considering the contents of the condonation application, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned.

Levy of penalty of Rs.3,96,000/- u/s 271 (1) (c ) by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT (A) is the only issue raised by the assessee in the various grounds of appeal.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer in the original order passed had made addition of Rs. 12,00,000/- on account of unexplained deposit in the bank account. The addition was upheld by the CIT(A). Subsequently penalty of Rs. 3,96,000/- was levied by the Assessing Officer which was also upheld by the CIT(A). He submitted that in the appeal filed by the assessee, the Tribunal vide order dated 30.10.2014 has set aside the issue to file of the Assessing Officer for de- novo examination and adjudication. The Assessing Officer in the order passed u/s143 (3) / 254 has sustained addition of Rs.2,50,000/- only out of Rs. 12,00,000/- made in the original order. On further appeal Ld. CIT(A) has reduced such addition to Rs.50,000/-. In these circumstances he has no objection if the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for afresh adjudication of the issue.

The Ld. DR on the other hand has no objection if the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

After hearing both the sides I find penalty was levied u/s 271 (1) (c) of the IT Act, 1961 on account of addition of Rs. 12 lacs made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained of deposit in the bank account. I find when the matter travelled up to the Tribunal, the Tribunal in the quantum proceedings has restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. Under these circumstances I deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication of the issue afresh in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. I hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.