RAJESH KUMAR,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-31(3), DELHI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No.
ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1067762650(1) dated
20.08.2024, in proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
It emerges during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have levied section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.3,34,647/- in assessee’s hands thereby holding him to have concealed and furnished inaccurate particulars of income.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings and Revenue’s vehement contention in support of impugned penalty and see no merit in the latter’s stand. This is Rajesh Kumar
2
for the precise reason that the impugned penalty pertains to quantum cash deposits addition of Rs.12,17,200/- and her presumptive tax computed u/s 44AD of the Act amounting to Rs.3,20,520/-; respectively. The only inference which prima facie arises in the given fact is that once assessee has been held as covered u/s 44AD admittedly, her cash deposits infact represent her business transactions only. I accordingly accept the assessee’s instant sole grievance to delete the addition in very terms in light of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt.
Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) that quantum and penalty proceedings are parallel proceedings wherein each and every addition/disallowance made in the course of the former does not ipso facto attract the latter penal provision, to delete the impugned penalty in very terms. Ordered accordingly.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 06/01/2025. (Satbeer Singh Godara)
Judicial Member
Dated: 06/01/2025
*Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS*