VALAKA ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,WEST BENGAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE – 20, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

12.2019. The penalty under challenge was levied by ACIT, Central Circle- 20, New Delhi u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, vide his order dated 15.03.2022. 2. At the outset, it is noticed that this appeal is barred by limitation i.e., by 412 days. The Assessee has filed Condonation Petition, supported by an Affidavit. The facts of the case are that the Ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned order on 22.02.2024, dismissing the appeal of assessee against the penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessee filed appeal before ITAT, Kolkata Benches under bonafide belief that the said Bench had juri iction of the Assessee as the juri ictional Assessing Officer was in Kolkata. The Assessee subsequently filed appeal before ITAT, Delhi Benches on 16.06.2025, after realising mistake that the assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer at Delhi i.e. ACIT, Central Circle, New Delhi. Hence, according to the advice of the Assessee’s Counsel, the appeal was filed before ITAT, Delhi Benches with the delay of 412 days which caused solely due to the aforesaid bonafide error and is neither intentional, nor deliberate. Hence, it was requested to condone the delay. The above stated facts when confronted to Ld. Senior DR, he did not controvert the same. After hearing rival contentions and going through the facts of the case that the Assessee was pursuing remedy with ITAT, Kolkata Benches by filing appeal but the correct juri iction lies with the ITAT, Delhi Benches because the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order and also levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, is ACIT, Central Circle-20, Delhi. It means that the juri iction for filing of this appeal lies with ITAT, Delhi Benches and not with Kolkata Benches. Going through the above reasons, we find the cause as reasonable and sufficient for which delay occurred. Hence, we condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. The only surviving issue in this appeal for assessee is as regards to the order of Ld. CITA, confirming the issue of levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the ValakaEngg Private Ltd Vs ACIT, Circle-20, ND

The brief facts of the case are that while computing the original assessment, the Assessing Officer noted that there are credit entries appearing in the Assessee’s Bank Account in respect to the Five Companies which are as under:

Consequent to the above, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s27(1)(c) of the Act for levying penalty on this amount of un- explained cash credit of Rs. 5,69,700/-, appearing in Assessee’s Bank Accounts in the above mentioned companies u/s 68 of the Act and on estimated commission of Rs. 3,27,100/-, but, CIT(A) deleted this penalty of commission estimated by the AO, however he restricted the penalty of Rs. 1,76,037/- on this un-explained credit in bank account of Rs. 5,69,700/-. Aggrieved by levy of penalty, the Assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) also ValakaEngg Private Ltd Vs ACIT, Circle-20, ND

4 In view of above facts of the case, it is held that as sum of Rs. 5,69,700/- was not reported in its books of account, therefore, the AO has rightly recorded his satisfaction that the appellant-company has concealed particulars of its income and has rightly levied penalty u/s271(1)(c) of the Act on this issue. Therefore, penalty on addition of Rs. 5,69,700/- is hereby confirmed. ”

Aggrieved, the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

We have heard rival contentions and, gone throughthe evidences of the case. Now, before us, Ld. Counsel for the Assessee filed additional evidences along with the Petition of admissibility of additional evidences vide letter dated 17.09.2025, stating that this amount of Rs. 5,69,700/- is not cash credit coming into the bank account rather this is the interest income on previous deposits and credited during this year. Along with this, the Assessee filed details of interest receipts from Six parties wherein, total interest received was Rs. 10,83,000/- , and on this the TDS deduction was Rs. 1,08,300/- and net amount received was Rs. 9,74,700/-. The Ld. Counsel explained that as far as Form No. 26AS and Form No. 16A are concerned, for the AY 2012-13, it is clear that the above amounts except the amount of Party No. 4 i.e. Ravechi Properties, wherein the credit of Rs. 4,50,000/- is separately disclosed. Ld. Counsel filed details of ValakaEngg Private Ltd Vs ACIT, Circle-20, ND

Ld. Counsel for the Assessee explained that out of the above, a sum of Rs. 5,69,700/- was interest receipts from deposits of earlier years and disclosed in its accounts as well as return of income as income. Hence, this cannot be added as un-explained credit because this is interest receipts of old deposits made with these parties. When these facts were confronted to Ld. Senior DR, he could not controvert the above facts and situation but he only requested that the evidences now, admitted can be sent back to the file of AO.

After hearing rival contentions and going through the facts of the case, we are of the view that due to the smallness of the penalty amount, we after admitting these evidences and adjudicate this issue. In our view, the Assessee has been able to explain that these interests income have already been disclosed ValakaEngg Private Ltd Vs ACIT, Circle-20, ND

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed in the above terms.