ANIL KUMAR HUF,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 49(1), CIVIC CENTER

The ld. counsel for the assessee has filed an application praying for condonation of delay in filing the appeal stating that the karta of the assessee Shri Anil Kumar is a cancer patient and was mentally disturbed in running here and there for treatment and managed to file the appeal with a delay of 18 days.

The ld. DR objected to the condonation of delay.

We find that there is a short delay of 18 days which stands reasonably explained. Accordingly, we condone this delay and admit the appeal.

Facts on record show that the assessee filed his return of income as HUF of Rs. 24,45,000/- which was assessed at 20% out of total credit entries in its bank account at Rs. 2,42,63,815/- in the name of Ravi Dev Enterprises. The Assessing Officer held that there was violation of provisions of section 44AB on account of non-audit of accounts and hence penalty u/s 271B of the Act was levied at Rs. 1,21,319/-.

Penalty was sustained by the ld. CIT(A) and hence the assessee is in appeal before us.

At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the ITAT in assessee’s own case for A.Y 2016-17 in ITA No.

The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued that the Ravi Dev Enterprises in whose bank account credit of over Rs. 2 crores is shown is the proprietorship concern of Anil Kumar, individual and not of the assessee Anil Kumar, HUF. It is submitted that the assessee does not have any business income and there is an inherent error in the assessment proceedings which have been initiated against the present assessee.

The ld. DR did not raise any serious objection.

We have carefully considered the orders of the ld. CIT(E) and have perused the documents which have been filed before us. We find that the Shri Anil Kumar, individual is doing business and having credit of over Rs. 2 crores in the bank account of his proprietary concern M/s Ravi Devi Enterprises. The present assessee who is an HUF does not have any business income. It is vivid from the order of the ITAT [supra] at Para 4 where a categorical finding has been given that an inherent error is there in the assessment proceedings initiated against the assessee Shri Anil Kumar HUF in regard to a bank account which is in the name of M/s Ravi Devi Enterprises whose proprietor is Anil Kumar, individual. The Tribunal has set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for determination of correct facts and real identity of the bank account holder for a fresh adjudication.

In that view of the matter, since the issue of turnover of the assessee has been set aside for fresh adjudication, there is no justification for penalty u/s 271B of the Act and the same is directed to be deleted.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.