Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA
The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 21.02.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] whereby he confirmed the penalty of Rs.36,97,339/- levied by the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2014-15.
The assessee has filed this appeal with a delay of 33 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay along with a sworn affidavit stating therein the reasons for delay in filing of the appeal. On perusal of the same, we are satisfied that the delay in filing of appeal is not intentional or deliberate but has occurred for the reasons mentioned in the affidavit. After hearing both the sides, we are of the view that the delay is attributable to the sufficient cause. We, therefore condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-
1. The order of the learned CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs.1,08,70,530/- U/s 69A of I.T. Act. made by the A.O. is erroneous as CIT(A) has not considered any grounds of appeal made by appellant at the time of filing the appeal. Even if the appellant had not made any submissions at time of appeal, it is the duty of CIT(A) to consider the grounds of appeal and give his reasons for acceptance / rejection of the same. But the CIT(A) has simply dismissed the appeal without considering the same. It is unjust and we request Your Honour to kindly accept the documents submitted by the appellant and give him relief and oblige.
2. The A.O. has added Rs.1,08,70,530/- on account of credits in the account maintained with Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Coop. Credit Society without conducting any enquiries and treating these credits as unexplained income. The A.O. did not possess any information and he presumed the income is unreported. The debit side of the said account is not at all considered by the A.O. The whole balance of the account has been either transferred or withdrawn. Only considering the cash deposits without considering the cash withdrawals is absurd and unreasonable. Hence, treating the total of credits in the said account as income is illogical. The A.O. should have at the maximum considered the peak cash deposits / gross profit on the same. Thus, the addition made by the A.O. is unjustified and accordingly the penalty is not leviable on the same as there is no concealment of income.
3. The section 80A state at "Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account Thus, the section clearly states that the only if the A.O. proves That these transactions are not recorded in assessee's books of accounts, then only the addition can be made under the above section. This point is even reiterated by the A.D. in point no. 12.2 of the order. But the A.O. has nowhere in the order proved that the appellant had not maintained his books of account or if maintained had not disclosed the transactions in the said account in his books of account. Thus, the claim that the appellant has not maintained his books of account is false. Hence, the addition made by the A.O. is unjustified and accordingly the penalty is not leviable on the same as there is no concealment of income.
4. The appellant is in the business of transportation and also has sold cement in the year under appeal. The appellant has maintained books of accounts wherein the said cooperative society account is also maintained and profit of Rs. 2,37,500/-has been disclosed which was his actual profit earned on the above transactions. Hence, there is no concealment of income as the appellant had disclosed all these transactions in his books of accounts and disclosed the profit if the A.O. has not accepted the same it does not amount to concealment of income. Thus, penalty is not leviable and we request Your Honour to kindly delete the same and oblige.
5. Also, the appellant is a small trader and service provider and is not aware of the complex procedures of assessment. This led to no response to the assessment proceedings as he relied on his tax consultant to do the same which he failed to do. Again, at the time of appellate proceedings, the email ID provided was of the old tax consultant who did not inform the appellant regarding the issuance of notices for hearing. Sir, the appellant has suffered a lot due to the mistakes of others. The appellant has all the supporting documents which prove that addition made is wrong and we request Your Honour to kindly accept the same and oblige.
6. We request Your Honour to kindly keep the appeal proceedings of penalty in abeyance till the decision of the ITAT appeal for the assessment proceedings is finalized.
7. It is humbly prayed that the reliefs as prayed and such other and further reliefs as may be justified by the facts and circumstances of the case and as may meet the ends of justice, may please be granted.
8. The Appellate craves the permission to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of the appeal, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.”
4. Vide our order of even date we have set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on quantum. We, therefore, set aside the impugned penalty order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to his file for decision afresh in accordance with law after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. We order accordingly.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28th October, 2024.