Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “A”, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & SHRI SUCHITRA KAMBLE
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26.11.2015 of the CIT(A)-2, Gurgaon relating to assessment year 2007-08. 2. Levy of penalty of Rs. 6,41,580/- by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act and confirmed the CIT(A) is the only issue raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of Income on 11th July, 2007 declaring taxable income of Rs. 1,03,540/- and agricultural income of 40,250/-. The AO completed the assessment on a total income of Rs. 20,90,630/- by making various additions which included additions of Rs. 19,80,000/- u/s 69 of the I.T.Act, 1961 on account of cash deposits in the bank account maintained with Corporation Bank. Similarly, the AO had also made addition of Rs. 40,250/- by treating agricultural income as income from other sources. The appeal of the assessee before the CIT(A) was dismissed. Subsequently, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. Rejecting the various explanation given by the assessee, the AO levied penalty of Rs. 6,41,580/- being 100% of tax sought to be avoid.
Since there was delay in filing of the appeal, the assessee filed a condonation petition before CIT(A) explaining the reasons for such delay. However, the ld. CIT(A) held that there was no genuine cause for such delay in filing the appeal and accordingly dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground that the same has been filed out of time. 5. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal with the following grounds :-
1. “That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal of assessee as out of time and that too without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and has further erred in not deciding the appeal on merits.
2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in levying penalty of Rs.6,41,580/- and that too without assuming jurisdiction as per law and without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without providing adequate opportunity of being heard.
3. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in levying penalty u/s 271(l)(c) is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. That the assessee craves the leave to add, alter or amend the grounds of appeal at any stage and all the grounds are without prejudice to each other.”
6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee filed a copy of the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in the quantum proceeding and submitted that the addition on which penalty has been levied by the AO has been deleted by the Tribunal. He, however, submitted that he has no objection if the matter is restored to file of the CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the appeal on merit after condoning the delay.
7. The ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the AO and the CIT(A).
8. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and the CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the Assessee. We have also considered the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case. We find the AO made addition of Rs. 19,30,000/- being cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee u/s 69 of the IT Act. Similarly, the AO had also made addition of Rs. 40,250/- treating the agricultural income declared by the assessee as income from other sources. Since the assessee could not succeed in appeal before the CIT(A), the AO initiated penalty proceedings and levied penalty of Rs. 6,41,580/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act which has been confirmed by the CIT(A). We find the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty so levied by the AO on the ground that the appeal was filed belatedly and the delay in such filing of the appeal was not explained before him to his satisfaction. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the Tribunal has deleted the major addition of 19,30,000/- in the order passed vide order dated 30.11.2012 for assessment year 2007-08. Although the order was passed before the CIT(A) confirmed the penalty so levied, however, the same was not considered by the CIT(A) before dismissing the