DCIT CC RG 3(1), MUMBAI vs. VIJAY GRIHNARIMAN P. LTD, MUMBAI

This appeal filed by the Revenue on 23.06.2016 is against the order of the CIT (A)-51, Mumbai dated 14.3.2016 for the assessment year 2006-07.

In this appeal, Revenue raised solitary ground relating to the CIT (A)’s decision in deleting the penalty imposed u/s 271D of the Act. At the outset, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that this is the case where the penalty u/s 271D was levied when the quantum addition was undisputed. Relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Standard Brands Ltd [2006] 285 ITR 295 (Delhi), Ld Counsel for the assessee demonstrated that the said judgment is relevant for the legal proposition that when the addition is made u/s 269SS of the Act is confirmed, Revenue could not resort to proceedings u/s 271D of the Act. Relying on the said legal proposition, CIT (A) granted relief on this issue and therefore, the Revenue is in appeal. Before us, Ld Counsel for the assessee relied on the order of the CIT (A) and reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities.

On the other hand, Ld DR for the Revenue relied on the order of the AO.

We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as the cited precedent and the relevant material placed before us. On hearing both the parties and on perusal of the order of the CIT (A) in general and the contents of para 10 of his order in particular, we find, the same is relevant. Considering the significance and for the sake of completeness of this order, the said para 10 of the CIT (A)’s order is extracted as under:- “10. Coming to penalty levied u/s 271D, as pointed out by the assessee, AO cannot on one hand say it is concealed income and in the same breath say that it is cash loan. Once an amount is held to be unaccounted income the same cannot again be treated as cash loan. Therefore, I am of the opinion that penalty u/s 271D is not leviable on the amount treated as assessee’s income. Thus, I direct to delete the penalty levied u/s 271D............” 5. Considering the above, we are of the opinion the decision taken by the CIT (A), in principle, is in tune with the cited judgment of the Supreme Court (supra) and therefore, the decision of the CIT (A) in granting relief to the assessee is fair and it does not call for any interference. Accordingly, ground raised