, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !', $ '% BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1261/CHNY/2018 ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 SHRI ARIEF NAGOOR ARIEF, NO.24, NEW NO.32, VENKATA IYER STREET, 2 ND FLOOR, MANNADI, CHENNAI - 600 001. PAN : ADAPA 9508 Q V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE 11, CHENNAI 600 006. (*+/ APPELLANT) (,-*+/ RESPONDENT) *+ . / / APPELLANT BY : SHRI T. VASUDEVAN, ADVOCATE ,-*+ . / / RESPONDENT BY : DR. S. PANDIAN, JCIT 0 . 1$ / DATE OF HEARING : 25.07.2019 23( . 1$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.08.2019 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -13, CHENNAI, DATED 02.02.2018, CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER UNDER SECTION 271D OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT ') FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2 I.T.A. NO.1261/CHNY/18 2. SHRI T. VASUDEVAN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE, SUBMITTED THAT IN THE QUANTUM ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT, THIS TRIBUNAL REMITTED BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECONSIDERATION. ACCORDI NG TO THE LD. COUNSEL, WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISBELIEVED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT FUNDS WERE RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS PERSONS AND ADDITI ON WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT TREATING THE SAME AS THE ASSE SSEES OWN MONEY, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT CANNOT B E APPLIED CONSEQUENTIALLY. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. C OUNSEL, THERE CANNOT BE ANY LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271D OF THE AC T. MOREOVER, THIS TRIBUNAL SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BE LOW IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL AND REMITTED BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE L D. COUNSEL, AT THIS STAGE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE WAS VIOLATION O F SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT WHICH WARRANTS LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 27 1D OF THE ACT. 3. WE HEARD DR. S. PANDIAN, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL RE PRESENTATIVE ALSO. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER MADE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT TREATING THE FUNDS SAID TO BE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM OTHERS AS THE ASSESSEES OWN FUNDS AN D ALSO LEVIED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271D OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSE E NOW CLAIMS THAT THIS TRIBUNAL REMITTED BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER 3 I.T.A. NO.1261/CHNY/18 FOR RECONSIDERATION WITH REGARD TO QUANTUM ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. IN THOSE FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS TRIB UNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271D OF THE ACT NEEDS TO BE RE-EXAMINED. ACCORDINGLY, ORDERS OF BOTH THE AU THORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ISSUE OF LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTIO N 271D OF THE ACT IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RE-EXAMINE THE MATTER IN THE LIGHT OF THE MAT ERIAL THAT MAY BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE A SSESSEE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 1 ST AUGUST, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !') ( . . . ) (S. JAYARAMAN) (N.R.S. GANESAN) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 1 ST AUGUST, 2019. KRI. . ,167 87(1 /COPY TO: 1. *+/ APPELLANT 2. ,-*+/ RESPONDENT 3. 0 91 () /CIT(A)- 13, CHENNAI 4. PRINCIPAL CIT- 8, CHENNAI 5. 7: ,1 /DR 6. ' ; /GF.