NANDKISHOR H. BIRLA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1053/PUN/2016Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 February 2018AY 2000-012 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal had previously deleted the quantum addition of Rs. 34 lakhs. Consequently, the appeal concerning the penalty levied on this addition was rendered infructuous and dismissed.

What were the facts?

During a search operation, incriminating material suggested the assessee invested Rs. 34 lakhs in money lending. The AO added this amount as unexplained investment under Section 69, and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). The CIT(A) confirmed the addition.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) can survive when the primary addition under Section 69 has been deleted by the Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE

Before: SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, AM & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM

For Appellant: Shri Jatin Shah
For Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha, JCIT
Hearing: 27.02.2018Pronounced: 27.02.2018

आदेश आदेश

PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM :

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of CIT(A)-3, Pune,

dated 16-02-2016 for the Assessment Year 2000-01. 2. Relevant facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. Assessee filed the return of income on 31-10-2000 declaring total income of Rs.1,84,680/-.

There was search operation u/s.132 of the Act in the case of Shriram H. Soni Wherein certain incriminating material/loose papers pertaining to the assessee were seized alleging that assessee invested Rs.34 lakhs in money lending and the same

are unaccounted. Eventually, the AO added Rs.34 lakhs to the total income of the assessee invoking the provisions of section 69 of the Act as unexplained

investment. AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. CIT(A) vide his order dated 26-10-2010 confirmed the addition made by the AO. Further,

it is observed that assessee having aggrieved with the order of CIT(A) filed an appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.53/PUN/2011. The Tribunal vide order dated

30-06-2017 deleted the quantum addition made by the AO.

3.

At the outset, before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the since the quantum addition has been deleted by the Tribunal, the present appeal

filed by the assessee does not survive and therefore, it becomes infructuous

appeal.

4.

After hearing both the sides and on perusing the facts narrated above, we

find the assessee has no grievance owing to deletion of quantum addition by the Tribunal vide order dated 30-06-2017. Therefore, the present appeal filed by the assessee in connection with the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on the said

unfructified quantum addition u/s.69 of the Act, does not survive. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee become infructuous and therefore dismissed as such.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 27th day of February, 2018. (VIKAS AWASTHY) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य /JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER सद"य

पुणे Pune; "दनांक Dated : 27th February, 2018 सतीश आदेश क" आदेश क" "ितिलिप "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत अ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेश आदेश क" क" "ितिलिप "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत अ"ेिषत

अपीलाथ" / The Appellant

1.

""यथ" / The Respondent

2.3.

The CIT(A)-3, Pune

4.

CIT-3, Pune िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “B Bench” Pune; 5. गाड" फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,स आदेशानुसार

स"यािपत "ित //// Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →