Anil Kumar HUF, Delhi V. ITO Ward 49(1), Civic Center

ITA 1573/DEL/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4975 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-08-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 13-08-2024
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 05-04-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DEEPAK
• Keywords: Business income; Condonation of delay; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 271B; 44AB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘A’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1573/DEL/2024 [A.Y. 2016-17] Shri Anil Kumar, HUF Vs. The Income tax Officer B – 17/4, Ramesh Nagar Ward – 49(1) New Delhi New Delhi PAN – AAFHA 2224 P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak, CA Department By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 14.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 14.08.2024 ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A), Delhi dated 03.01.2024 pertaining to A.Y 2016-17. 2 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. It is contended that the levy of penalty U/s 271B for Rs. 1,21,319/-confirmed by the CIT(Appeals) is not sustainable as the quantum assessment for AY-2016-17 U/s 143(3) dated 20- 12-2018 has been set aside for de novo assessment vide ITAT Order dated 29-02-2024 in Appeal No.ITA 2098/Del/2023. 2. It is contended that Ravi Dev Enterprises is the proprietary of Anil Kumar Individual and not the appellant and the appellant does not have any business income. 3. It is contended that the penalty U/s 271B of Rs. 1,21,319/- needs to be deleted. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, delete or withdraw any ground at the time of hearing.” 3. The representatives of both the sides were heard at length, the case records carefully perused. 4. The ld. counsel for the assessee has filed an application praying for condonation of delay in filing the appeal stating that the karta of the assessee Shri Anil Kumar is a cancer patient and was mentally disturbed in running here and there 3 for treatment and managed to file the appeal with a delay of 18 days. 5. The ld. DR objected to the condonation of delay. 6. We find that there is a short delay of 18 days which stands reasonably explained. Accordingly, we condone this delay and admit the appeal. 7. Facts on record show that the assessee filed his return of income as HUF of Rs. 24,45,000/- which was assessed at 20% out of total credit entries in its bank account at Rs. 2,42,63,815/- in the name of Ravi Dev Enterprises. The Assessing Officer held that there was violation of provisions of section 44AB on account of non-audit of accounts and hence penalty u/s 271B of the Act was levied at Rs. 1,21,319/-. 8. Penalty was sustained by the ld. CIT(A) and hence the assessee is in appeal before us. 9. At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the ITAT in assessee’s own case for A.Y 2016-17 in ITA No. 2098/DEL/2023 vide order dated 29.02.2024 has set aside the 4 assessment to the file of the Assessing Officer for passing fresh order on merits. 10. The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued that the Ravi Dev Enterprises in whose bank account credit of over Rs. 2 crores is shown is the proprietorship concern of Anil Kumar, individual and not of the assessee Anil Kumar, HUF. It is submitted that the assessee does not have any business income and there is an inherent error in the assessment proceedings which have been initiated against the present assessee. 11. The ld. DR did not raise any serious objection. 12. We have carefully considered the orders of the ld. CIT(E) and have perused the documents which have been filed before us. We find that the Shri Anil Kumar, individual is doing business and having credit of over Rs. 2 crores in the bank account of his proprietary concern M/s Ravi Devi Enterprises. The present assessee who is an HUF does not have any business income. It is vivid from the order of the ITAT [supra] at Para 4 where a categorical finding has been given that an inherent error is there in the assessment proceedings initiated against the assessee Shri Anil Kumar HUF in regard to a bank account which is 5 in the name of M/s Ravi Devi Enterprises whose proprietor is Anil Kumar, individual. The Tribunal has set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for determination of correct facts and real identity of the bank account holder for a fresh adjudication. 13. In that view of the matter, since the issue of turnover of the assessee has been set aside for fresh adjudication, there is no justification for penalty u/s 271B of the Act and the same is directed to be deleted. 14. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 1573/DEL/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open court on 14.08.2024. Sd/- Sd/- [VIKAS AWASTHY] [NAVEEN CHANDRA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 14 th August, 2024. VL/ 6 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Date of dictation Date on which the typed draft is placed before the dictating Member Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Other Member Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.PS/PS Date on which the final order is uploaded on the website of ITAT Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order Date of dispatch of the Order