VINOD MOHANAN,NAVI MUMBAI vs. NFAC, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

3. Subsequently, the A.O. has initiated penalty proceedings u/sec 271(1)(c) of the Act and has levied penalty of Rs. 2,03,332/- vide order dated 03.01.2022.

5. At the time of hearing the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in not considering the fact that the assessee has filed an appeal against the quantum addition and the same is pending. Whereas the CIT(A) has overlooked the facts and has confirmed the levy of penalty. Further the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) in the (A.Y.: 2013-14) Vinod Mohanan, Mumbai quantum appeal has deleted the addition made by the AO and allowed the assesse appeal and therefore the penalty levied by the A.O is not sustainable and the Ld.AR prayed for allowing the assessee appeal. Per Contra, the Ld. DR relied on the order of the CIT(A).

6. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The sole matrix of the disputed issue envisaged by the Ld.AR that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the levy of penalty u/sec 271(1)(c) of the Act even though the assessee has filed an appeal against the quantum addition made in the assessment order u/sec 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 16.09.2021. The Ld. AR has demonstrated the copy of the appellate order dated 10.05.2024 deleting the addition made by the A.O. at Page 7 Para 4.3 to Para 6 of the order read as under:

“4.3 Brief facts noted in this case are that as per information available with the department, the assessee had purchased immovable property of Rs.44,50,000/- and made cash deposit of Rs.5,95,000/- into his bank account. After recording reasons, u/s 147 of the IT Act, notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was issued to the assessee on 19.03.2020 and served on the assessee electronically. Apart from this notice, various notices were issued to the assessee to furnish necessary documents and written submission. The AO specifically vide notices dated 01.01.2021, 07.01.2021, 17.08.2021, 24.03.2021, 02.07.2021 and 29.07.2021 asked the assessee to submit reply alongwith the supporting documents in respect of the source of cash deposited into the bank accounts maintained with the HDFC Bank. The assessee failed to submit any supporting documents. Finally, the AO issued showcause notice to the assessee in the form of draft assessment order vide which an opportunity was given to the assessee as to why proposed variation should not be made and the assessee be not completed as per the draft (A.Y.: 2013-14) Vinod Mohanan, Mumbai assessment order on 01.09.2021. The assessee filed his submission on various issues raised by the AO in his showcause notice. However, in respect of unexplained cash deposit, the assessee did not offer any documentary evidence and only argued that he had received a cash deposit of Rs.5,95,000/- as gift from wife of Rs. 150000/-, Rs.170000/- from his father, gift of Rs. 1,50,000/- from father in law and old saving of Rs. 1,25,000/-. However, no supporting documents were furnished by the assessee. The AO held that the assessee failed to satisfy the conditions as stipulated u/s 69A of the IT Act and accordingly, made an addition of Rs.6,58,000/- u/s 69A of the IT Act.

4.4 Considered the facts of the ground, material available on record, and contention of the appellant. It is seen that the appellant has attached certain documentary evidences which were not furnished by the appellant during the assessment proceedings. Since, these evidences were not furnished by the appellant during assessment proceedings, these tantamount to additional evidences. From the perusal of the appellants submission including dated 25/03/2024, and the circumstantial logics at the additional evidences are technical in nature and point to the root of the underlying appeal, the same are acceptable.

in favour of the assessee.

8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.