SHRI PRAKASH HIRALAL PATWARI,INDORE vs. CIT(A)-3 , INDORE

Though the assessees have not appeared before us, written notes as submission has been duly filed. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR relied upon the orders passed by the authorities below.

The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act to the tune of Rs.2,70,000/- in both casesare under challenge before us. It is an admitted fact that the assessees had not made any compliance before the Ld.AO and assessments under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act were framed and penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated. Even during course of penalty proceedings, the assessees did not appear and no written submission was filed by the assessees for rejection of penalty proceedings. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed on both the assessees treating the cash deposit of Rs.11,09,000/- as unexplained investment. Hence, there is no such mention of concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. We find that the same was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). It further appears that the assessees 29/Ind/2020 (Nilesh& Prakash Patwari)3 havefiled appeals against said orders made under Section 144/147 of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) which are still pending. Therefore, taking into consideration, the entire aspect of the matters, we do not find any reason to confirm the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, particularly, when there is no allegation of concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by both the assessees in the said penalty orders. We, thus, find no merit in the impugned orders and, thus, quashed. Accordingly, the appeals filed by both the assessee stand allowed.

In the result, appeals filed by both the assessees are allowed.