Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, AM & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM
आदेश / O R D E R
PER RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-36, Mumbai, dated 29.11.2012, which in itself arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec.271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act’), dated 28.03.2014.
Briefly stated, the assessee had filed her return of income on 31.03.2011, declaring total income of Rs.5,64,240/-. The case of the assessee was thereafter selected for scrutiny assessment under Sec.143(2).
P a g e | Chandrika Tapuriah Vs. ACIT C.C. 2 3. The A.O during the course of the assessment proceedings observed that the assessee had made cash deposits aggregating to Rs.1,43,000/- in her HDFC Bank Ltd. A/c No. 01051000102078 and Oriental Bank of Commerce A/c No. 02861010000890, as under:
Date Name of the Bank A/c No. Amount 06.01.2009 HDFC Bank 01051000102078 14000 13.05.2008 HDFC Bank 01051000102078 37000 20.05.2008 HDFC Bank 01051000102078 50000 30.04.2008 Oriental Bank of Commerce 02861010000890 42000 Total 143000 That as the assessee failed to explain the nature and source of the aforesaid cash deposits, therefore, the same was added by the A.O to her returned income under Sec.68 of the Act. The aforesaid addition made by the A.O was thereafter confirmed by the CIT(A), vide his order dated 29.11.2012. The A.O after receiving the order passed by the CIT(A) imposed a penalty of Rs.44,187/- under Sec.271(1)(c).
Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the penalty imposed by the A.O under Sec. 271(1)(c) in appeal before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) not finding favour with the contentions advanced by the assessee, upheld the penalty imposed by the A.O under Sec.271(1)(c).
The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) upholding the penalty imposed by the A.O under Sec.271(1)(c) has carried the matter in appeal before us. The assessee had filed before us written submissions, dated 15.06.2018. It is stated by the assessee that the Tribunal while disposing off her quantum appeal for the year under consideration i.e A.Y 2009-10, viz. Chandrika Tapuriah Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Mumbai [ITA No. 771/Mum/2013, dated 07.11.2014] (Copy enclosed), had set aside the addition of Rs. 1,43,000/- to the file of the A.O for fresh adjudication. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that now when the quantum issue had been restored by the Tribunal to the file of the A.O, therefore, the penalty imposed under Sec.271(1)(c) may also be set aside to the file of the A.O for fresh P a g e | Chandrika Tapuriah Vs. ACIT C.C. 2 adjudication. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘D.R’) did not controvert the factual position as averred by the assessee in her written submissions.
We have perused the order passed by the Tribunal while disposing off the quantum appeal of the assessee for the year under consideration, viz. Chandrika Tapuriah Vs. ACIT Central Circle-2, Mumbai (ITA No. 771/Mum/2013, dated 07.11.2014) and find that the Tribunal had restored the quantum addition of Rs.1,43,000/- to the file of the A.O for fresh adjudication. We are of the considered view that as the quantum addition in itself had been restored to the file of the A.O for fresh adjudication, therefore, the penalty imposed under Sec.271(1)(c) also has to be set aside to the file of the A.O, with a direction to re-adjudicate the same after passing of the fresh assessment order. We thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations set aside the order imposing penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) to the file of the A.O. 7. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 13.07.2018 Sd/- Sd/- (G. MANJUNATHA) (RAVISH SOOD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER भुंफई Mumbai; ददनांक 13.07.2018 Ps. Rohit P a g e | Chandrika Tapuriah Vs. ACIT C.C. 2