SUMANGLAM SEWA AIVAM EDUCATIONAL SAMITI,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD

ORDER

Per L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member:

1. That in absence of a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the Learned AO, the penalty order is void ab initio.

1.1. That the finding of learned CIT(A) that the Assessing Officer has given proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant society is contrary to the material on record. 1.2 Whether the opportunity given by the CIT(A) to make submissions can substitute the opportunity to be given by the Learned Assessing Officer in terms of section 274(1) of the Act? 1.3 That the Leaned AO/CIT(A) ignored the reply dated 29.01.2009 of the appellant society.

2. The brief facts of the case pertaining to A.Y. 2002-03 are that the return of income was filed by assessee on 30.12.2003 and the same was processed u/s 143(1) of the income Tax Act, 1961 on 26.03.2006 at the returned income. Meanwhile a survey was conducted on the premises of the assessee on 17.02.2006 wherein during the course of survey, a loose paper (marked as Page No 89 of Annexure D-3) was found which showed that certain payments had been made by one Shri Vijay Gupta and another Shri J.K Gulati to Shri Satish Kumar, Secretary of the assessee society. The amount pertaining to AY 2003-04 was Rs. 33,66,100/- which according to AO was the undisclosed income of assessee having escaped assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 was issued on 26.03.2007 and was served upon the assessee through affixture on 16.04.2007. The assessment u/s. 147 was completed on 30.12.2008 thereby making addition of Rs.33,66,100/- on account of unexplained investment and of Rs.9,00,000/- on account of unsecured loan. Similarly, In A.Y. 2004-05, on the basis of same survey, an addition of Rs.1,35,70,367/- was made by the AO vide order 31.12.2008 u/s. 147 of the Act. In appeals filed against these assessment orders, the ld. CIT(A) sustained the impugned additions. The Assessing Officer subsequently initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and on the basis of above additions and finding the reply of assessee unsatisfactory and keeping in view the sustenance of additions by the ld. CIT(A), imposed a penalty of Rs.20,80,000/-, for A.Y. 2003-04 and of Rs.46,00,000/- for A.Y. 2004-05. The assessee challenged the penalty orders in appeals before the ld. CIT(A), which stood dismissed vide the impugned orders, irked by which the assessee has come up in these appeals before us.

3. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee, besides making elaborate arguments on various aspects of the cases, contended at the outset that the conclusions arrived at by the authorities below for imposing and sustaining penalty, are based on the fact that the additions made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings u/s. 147, stood confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) in quantum appeals. Such conclusion has now no legs to stand in view of the decision rendered by the ITAT, Delhi Bench in assessee’s quantum appeals Nos. 1467 & 1468/Del./2011 against the orders of ld. CIT(A) whereby the assessment orders u/s. 147 of the Act have been quashed vide order dated 13.10.2015, thereby deleting the consequential additions, which led the Assessing Officer to impose penalty against the assessee. He, therefore, urged to allow the appeals of the assessee. On the other hand, the ld. DR opposing the contentions of the assessee, relied on the orders of the authorities below.