BIPINKUMAR AMRITLAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(1)(4), MUMBAI

The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of learned CIT(A) in confirming the penalty of ` 6,28,282/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.

The assessee appeared in person. I heard the assessee and also learned Departmental Representative. Facts relating to the issues are discussed in brief. From the AIR information the Assessing Officer came to know that the assessee has deposited cash into his bank account aggregating to ` 20,18,500/-. The assessee submitted that the same represents proceeds of textile business carried on by him. However, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has not declared bank account before the Income Tax authorities

The assessee appearing before me submitted that he has challenged the order passed by learned CIT(A) in the quantum proceedings by filing the appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, vide its order dated 3.7.2015 passed in has restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to quantify the peak amount of the deposits and assess the same. The assessee further submitted that the impugned penalty order is liable to be set aside since the matter has been restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer.

Having heard the rival submissions I find that there is merit in the submissions made by the assessee. Since the addition on which the impugned penalty has been levied, have been modified by the Tribunal and the matter has been restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer, the impugned orders of the tax authorities relating to penalty are liable to be set aside. Accordingly I set aside the penalty order passed by both the authorities. I may make it clear that the Assessing Officer may initiate penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in the set aside proceedings, if so advised.

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