Shri Suketu Hamukhbhai Patel, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

ITA 1618/AHD/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3444 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-04-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 24-10-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Set aside
• Section: 68; 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरणआयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठ अहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठअहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठ अहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठ ‘‘बी’,’ अहमदाबाद अहमदाबादअहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद । ।। । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] ] BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD M. JAGTAP, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1618/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Suketu Hasmukhbhai Patel 418, Platinum Plaza Judges Bungalow Road Ahmedabad-380 054 PAN: AFUPP 4132 P Vs The ITO Ward1(1)(3) Ahmedabad ी / (Appellant) / (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri None Revenue by : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.DR /Date of Hearing : 26/04/2022 /Date of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश/O R D E R PER PRAMOD M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Ahmedabad [CIT(A)] dated 23 rd August-2019 passed for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13, whereby he confirmed the penalty of Rs.6,18,000/- imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. The assessee, in the present case, is an individual. In the assessment completed u/s.143(3) of the Act vide an order dated 25/03/2015, the total income of the assessee was determined by the Assessing Officer at ITA No. 1618/Ahd/2019 Shri Suketu Hasmukhbhai Patel vs. ITO AY 2012-13 2 Rs.56,87,752/- after making addition inter alia of Rs.20 lakhs u/s.68 of the Act by treating the deposits taken by the assessee from four persons as unexplained cash credit. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated by the Assessing Officer and since the explanation offered by the assessee in response to the notice issued during the course of said proceedings was not found satisfactory by him, the Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of Rs.6,18,000/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded by the assessee in respect of addition of Rs.20 lakhs made u/s.68 of the Act. 3. The penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act was challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed before the Ld.CIT(A) and since there was no compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued by him fixing the said appeal for hearing from time to time, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide his appellate order dated 23/08/2019 passed ex-parte thereby confirming the penalty of Rs.6,18,000/- imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing before the Tribunal, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee and an application seeking adjournment of the hearing is filed. The Ld. DR, however, has pointed out that the addition made u/s.68 of the Act of Rs.20 lakhs was challenged by the assessee in the quantum proceedings and while disposing of the appeal of the assessee vide an order dated 23/03/2018 passed in ITA No.653/Ahd/2017, the matter has been remitted by the Tribunal to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The matter relating to the addition of Rs.20 lakhs made to the total income of the assessee u/s. 68 of the Act in respect of which the ITA No. 1618/Ahd/2019 Shri Suketu Hasmukhbhai Patel vs. ITO AY 2012-13 3 impugned penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is imposed is now pending with the Ld.CIT(A) and keeping in view the same, we find merit in the contention of the Ld. DR that the matter relating to the penalty involved in the present appeal should also be remitted back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh depending upon the outcome of the quantum proceedings. The impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) confirming the imposition of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh depending on the outcome of the quantum proceedings which are pending with him. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 28 th April, 2022 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER (PRAMOD M. JAGTAP) VICE-PRESIDENT Ahmedabad, Dated 28/4/2022 . ी. य , . . ./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS ! "# /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. "!ी $% / The Appellant 2. &य$% / The Respondent. 3. '(')* य य + / Concerned CIT 4. य य + )"!ी (/ The CIT(A)-1, Ahmedabad 5. . /ीय )* , य "!ी य ")* , ज /DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad, 6. / 12 3 /Guard file. / BY ORDER, &य ! //True Copy// ह य !'जी (Asstt. Registrar) य "!ी य ")* , ITAT, Ahmedabad