Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA
O R D E R PER S.V. MEHROTRA, V.P. :
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 25.10.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, New Delhi, upholding the levy of penalty passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), relating to assessment year 2010-11.
At the outset, ld. counsel for the assessee referred to the Tribunal’s order dated 22.02.2017 and pointed out that the addition has been deleted and, therefore, penalty order does not survive.
I have considered the submissions of both the parties and find that the Tribunal in para 4 has observed as under :-
“4. I have heard the parties and perused the relevant material on record. The ld. AR did not dispute any of the figures taken by the AO in the above calculation except the amount of total cash withdrawals from the above bank taken by the AO at Rs.28,14,780/-. The ld. AR submitted that the AO went wrong in adopting this figure as against the correct figure of Rs.41,26,970/-. This was sought to be fortified by placing on record certain details of cash deposits and withdrawals from the bank account. This factual aspect needs verification at the end of the AO. In view of this, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would meet adequately if the impugned order on this score is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of AO. I order accordingly and direct him to verify the figure of total cash withdrawals from the bank and substitute the correct figure with the amount of Rs.28,14,780/- and, thereafter, determine undisclosed income, if any, from the calculation made by him.”
Therefore, ld. CIT(A)’s order confirming the penalty needs to be set- aside as it has no legs to stand. However, the Assessing Officer would be free to take action in accordance with law after giving effect to Tribunal’s order.
In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed in terms of aforementioned observations. Order pronounced in the open court on this 12th day of April, 2017.