SMT. ALKA JINDAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1518 & 1519/Del/2014 Assessment Years: 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Vs. ACIT, Circle-20(1), New Delhi Smt. Alka Jindal, C/o- M/s. RRA Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi PAN : AACPJ7966L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by S/Sh. Shaantanu Jain & Deepesh Garg, Advocates Respondent by Sh. Subhakant Sahu, Sr.DR Date of hearing 14.12.2017 Date of pronouncement 14.12.2017 ORDER PER BENCH:

These appeals by the assessee are directed against separate orders dated 02/12/2013 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XII, New Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] in relation to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) levied by the Ld. Assessing Officer for assessment years 2001-02 to 2003-04 respectively. 2. In the grounds raised in all the three appeals, the assessee has challenged the action of the learned CIT(A) in confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

3. At the outset, the learned counsel of the assessee submitted that order of the learned CIT(A) confirming the quantum addition has already been set aside by the order of the Tribunal in to 2352/Del/2008 for assessment year 2001-02 to 2003-04, thus the quantum addition stands deleted and therefore, the penalty proceedings rendered infructuous and accordingly, he prayed to allow the appeal of the assessee.

4. Ld. Sr. DR, on the other hand, relied on the order of the lower authorities.

6. We have heard the rival submission and perused the relevant material on record particularly order of the Tribunal (supra). We find that the Tribunal in Para - 7 of the order has held as under:

7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is pertinent to note that there was no satisfaction recorded in assessee’s case. In fact the letter dated 22.11.2007 lacks in the aspect of recording any satisfaction by the concerned Assessing Officer of the searched party. There was no incriminating material found as the assessee herself has disclosed the said documents while filing the returns. In the order of the CIT(A), it is specifically mentioned that since the A.O is same, there is no requirement of separate handing over of material. The same can be seen on page 7 of the CIT(A)’s order. The CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer totally ignored the evidence produced before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings In-fact identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of these gifts as well as confirmation was established by the assessee. The assessee filed all the details which were before the Assessing Officer. Merely, on the suspicion, the Assessing Officer cannot make addition as undisclosed income. In-fact, the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) was very well aware that the mandatory procedure which has to be followed in case of search was not at all followed in assessee’s case. Thus, the action under Section 153C of the Act itself is not valid. The case law relied by the Ld. AR are in support of the assessee’s case. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside. The appeal of the assessee is allowed. 8. & 2352/Del/2008 for Assessment Year 2002-03 & 2003-04 respectively are also have similar issue therefore the same order will follow. Therefore, all appeals are allowed.

raised by the assessee in all the three appeals.

8. In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed. The decision is pronounced in the open court on 14th Dec., 2017.