VIRENDER KUMAR GUPTA,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] – XXVI, New Delhi dated 15.03.2018 pertaining to assessment year 2008-09.

The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 46,350/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'].

Facts on record show that in the assessment order framed u/s 144 r.w.s 153A of the Act, the following additions were made:

The fate of these additions, after the order of the first appellate authority, read as under:

Penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer without affording any opportunity to the assessee to explain its case. The Assessing Officer has, suo moto, decided that the assessee has concealed its income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income without affording any opportunity to the assessee to explain its case.

In my considered opinion, once the additions have attained finality by the order of the appellate authority, for the balance of the additions, if any, the Assessing Officer must give opportunity to the assessee to explain whether there is any concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In the case in hand, I find that the Assessing Officer has not allowed any opportunity to the assessee. I, therefore, remit the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to decide the issue of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act afresh after affording reasonable and fair opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.