Nanak Chand Bansal, Faridabad V. DCIT, Central Circle- II, Faridabad

ITA 1694/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0333 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-01-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 27-02-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAKESH GUPTA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 153A

Judgement Text

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1694/Del/2019 Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Nanak Chand Bansal, C/o RRA Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi – 110 049 PAN AAUPC9499B Vs. DCIT, Central Circle- II, Faridabad (Appellant) (Respondent) O R D E R PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.12.2018 passed by the Ld. CIT (A)-3, Gurgaon arising from penalty order passed u/s 271AAA of the Income Tax Assessee by: Shri Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. Department by : Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 11.01.2022 Date of pronouncement 11. 01.2022 2 Act for the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee has raised following grounds :- “1) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O. of assuming jurisdiction to impose penalty u/s 271AAA of Rs. 1,07,244/-. 2) That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the imposition of penalty u/s 271 AAA amounted to Rs. 1,07,244/- is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of case.. 3) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. A.O. in passing the impugned order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard and by not observing the principles of natural justice. 4) That the appellant craves the leave to add, alter or amend the grounds of appeal at any stage and all the grounds are without prejudice to each other. “ 2. We have heard the Ld. AR as well as Ld. CIT-DR and considered the material on record. The AO has levied the penalty u/s 271AAA vide order dated 22 nd February 2018 in respect of the two additions of Rs. 10,22,435/- on account of unexplained jewellery and Rs. 50,000/- on account of unexplained cash respectively made while framing the assessment u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act. The assessee has challenged the levy of penalty before the Ld. CIT(A) but could not succeed. At the outset the Ld. 3 AR of the assessee has pointed out that this Tribunal has deleted the additions made by the AO in the quantum appeal vide order dated 3 rd July, 2019 in ITA No. 1056/Del/2017 and, therefore, the penalty would not survive. Ld. DR has not disputed the fact that this Tribunal in quantum appeal has deleted the additions made by the AO. 3. Having considered the rival submissions as well as record at the outset we note that this Tribunal has deleted the additions made by the AO in the quantum appeal vide order dated 3 rd July, 2019 in ITA No. 1056/Del/2017 as under :- “7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. From the perusal of the records it can be seen that the jewellery belongs to wife of the assessee and not belong to the assessee. Thus, the said jewellery cannot be added in the income of the assessee. The CIT(A) was not justified in confirming this addition to the extent of 200 gms jewellery in the hands of the assessee, because the entire jewellery belong to the wife of the assessee as per the statement of the son of the asseseee. Therefore, Ground Nos. 1 and 2 are allowed. As regards Ground No. 3, it is pertinent to note that the assesee and his wife are senior citizens who required medical attention at any instance and therefore the cash is required at home for emergency situations. Therefore Ground No. 3 is allowed.” 4. Thus in view of the order of this Tribunal in quantum appeal the additions against which the AO levied penalty u/s 271AAA 4 are no more in existence and consequently the penalty levied u/s 271AAA is liable to be deleted. 5. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced orally in the open court on conclusion of the hearing i.e. on 11 th January, , 2022. sd/- sd/- (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) (VIJAY PAL RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 11/01/2022 Veena Copy forwarded to 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi