Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “C”, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI L.P. SAHU
ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM
The Revenue has filed this Appeal against the impugned Order dated 30.11.2015 of the Ld. CIT(A), Rohtak relevant to assessment year 2011-12.
The following are the grounds raised by the Revenue:-
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in deleting the penalty of Rs.
17,69,155/-, which was imposed by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act as the assessee willfully and intentionally evaded two bank accounts in which AO found deposit of wroth
Rs. 57,40,358/- and on this quantum addition department is in appeal before ITAT, whereas it was obligatory on part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly during the course of assessment and Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty without appreciating the facts that the assessee had made a default under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act.
2. That the appellant craves for permission to add, delete or amend the ground of appeal
before or at the time of hearing of appeal.
The brief facts of the case are that Assessee filed return of income by declaring income of Rs. 1,45,060/- under the head Salary and Rs. 9,80,750/- from agriculture on 23.5.2011. The asessee derives income from salary and from agriculture. The case was selected into scrutiny through CASS. During the year under consideration, the assessee has made huge cash deposit amounting to Rs. 57,40,358/- in two bank accounts with SBI, Model Town, Rohtak and ICICI Bank, Rohtak. As per AO the notice u/s. 274 read with Section 271 of the I.T. Act, 1961 alongwith assessment order and notice of demand was issued to the assessee and case was fixed for hearing on 27.12.2013 which got properly served upon the assessee on 13.12.2013. Again on 19.3.2014 show cause notice was issued to the assessee fixing the case for 25.3.2014 and got properly served upon the assessee on 24.3.2014. But neither the assessee attended the proceeding nor filed any written reply.
Silence on the part of the assessee and avoidance of service of notice got to suggest that the assesssee has nothing to say in this regard and he has willfully and intentionally concealed the particulars of income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income just to evade the tad. Therefore, the AO imposed the penalty of Rs. 17,69,155/- being 100% of tax sought to be evaded vide his order dated 28.5.2014 passed u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act. Against the aforesaid penalty order dated 28.5.2014, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), Rohtak who vide his impugned order dated 30.11.2015 has allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the penalty in dispute. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal.
Ld. DR relied upon the Order of the AO and reiterated the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal.
5. Ld. Counsel of the assessee relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A).
We have heard both the parties and perused the relevant records, especially the impugned order. We find that Assessee filed return of income by declaring income of Rs. 1,45,060/- under the head Salary and Rs. 9,80,750/- from agriculture on 23.5.2011.
The asessee derives income from salary and from agriculture. The case was selected into scrutiny through CASS. During the year under consideration, the assessee has made huge cash deposit amounting to Rs. 57,40,358/- in two bank accounts with SBI, Model Town, Rohtak and ICICI Bank, Rohtak. On non compliance from the assessee’s side, the AO has completed the assessment by making addition of Rs. 57,40,358/- being credit entries in bank account and Rs. 980750/- being agriculture income declared by the assessee. We note that assesee had filed appeal for original assessment for AY 2011-12 before the Ld. CIT(A), Rohtak and Ld. CIT(A), Rohtak has decided the quantum assessment in assessee’s favour vide order dated 13.11.2015 passed in Appeal No. 242/2014- 15, therefore, the penalty cannot be sustained, hence, the same was rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A), which does not need any interference on our part, therefore, we uphold the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the penalty in dispute and reject the ground raised by the Revenue.
In the result, the Appeal filed by the Department stands
dismissed.
Order pronounced on 22/11/2017.