DEEPAK GUPTA ALIAS ROCKY GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The only ground raised by the assessee is against the confirmation of penalty of `3,11,920/- which was levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

At the time of hearing before us, it was pointed out by the learned counsel that the Assessing Officer had levied the penalty u/s 2 ITA-1420/Del/2012 271(1)(c) in respect of addition of `10,15,000/-. It was pointed out by the learned counsel that in the quantum appeal, learned CIT(A) has sustained the addition of only `70,000/- and deleted the balance addition. He, therefore, submitted that the levy of penalty on the entire assessed income of `10,15,000/- is uncalled for. The same should be cancelled.

Learned DR, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of authorities below.

We have heard the arguments of both the sides and have perused the material placed before us. Admittedly, no penalty can be levied in respect of the addition which is deleted by learned CIT(A). From the order of learned CIT(A), we find that he had confirmed the addition of `70,000/- and has also directed that it should be treated as income from undisclosed sources. No argument has been advanced by the assessee with regard to levy of penalty on the addition of `70,000/- as undisclosed income sustained by the CIT(A). We are, therefore, of the opinion that the penalty in respect of the addition of `70,000/- is sustainable. We direct the Assessing Officer to levy the minimum penalty with regard to the addition of `70,000/- sustained by the learned CIT(A) as income from undisclosed sources.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 16.12.2016.