RATAN CHAKRABORTY,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 50(5), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Ld. CIT(A)] dated 5th January, 2023, for Assessment Year 2017-18, which is arising out of the assessment order dated 27th December, 2019, passed by the Income Tax Officer, ward 50(5) (Ld. AO) under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

The sole grievance of the assessee is that learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the penalty of ₹1,50,000/- levied by

At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the impugned penalty deserves to be deleted because the alleged transactions of cash deposit do not pertain to the assessee and that inadvertently the bank has given information about the cash deposit in bank account of partnership firm M/s Mira Service Station in which assessee is a partner. He also submitted that against the additions made in the hands of the assessee for the cash deposit in the bank account, the assessee has approached before this Tribunal and this Tribunal on finding that the transactions of cash deposit pertains to the partnership firm M/s Mira Services Station and not to the assessee, has restored the matter to the file of the learned Assessing Officer to carry out necessary verification. He further submitted that since the transactions do not pertain to the assessee, levying of penalty under Section 271B of the Act is not in accordance with the law.

On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the orders of the learned lower authorities. 05. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. The assessee is aggrieved with

Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee has referred to the decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2017-18 vide dated 3rd July, 2024. Perusal of this order of the Tribunal, reveals

Considering the facts emerging out from the order of this Tribunal dated 3rd July, 2024, as well as the documents placed by the assessee in the paper book containing 105 pages, there remain no dispute to the fact that the cash deposits allegedly found to be in the bank account of the assessee are actually the business transactions of the partnership firm of M/s Mira Services Station which maintains regular books of account and some are dully audited and audit reports were furnished by the partnership firm under its PAN. Therefore, since alleged transactions are not of the assessee, there cannot be any case of business turnover exceeding the limits under Section 44AB of the Act in the case of the assessee and resultantly, there cannot be any case of levying the penalty under Section 271B of the Act in the given case. We therefore, reverse the order of the learned CIT (A) and delete the impugned penalty of ₹1,50,000/- levied under

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.