Nirmala Devi, New Delhi V. ITO WARD - 40(3), New Delhi

ITA 1968/DEL/2020

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Nirmala Devi against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, which pertained to the imposition of a penalty under section 271C of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2010-11. The primary contention was the alleged non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer in issuing the notice and the penalty order, which was argued to be vague and not specific to the limbs of section 271(1)(c) concerning concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Additionally, it was contended that the cash deposits in question were made in a joint account where the assessee was not the primary operator. The Tribunal noted the procedural irregularities and the substantive issues raised regarding the cash deposits, leading to the decision to set aside the penalty.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 108556 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 03-05-2023
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 20-12-2020
• Other Referred Cases: ITA No. 1967/Del/2020
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Condonation of delay
• Section: 274

Judgement Text

1 ITA No. 1968/Del/2020 Nirmala Devi Vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1968/DEL/2020 (A.Y. 2010-11) Nirmala Devi C-1/37, West Enclave, Pitampura, New Delhi. PAN: AAKPD7627F ( APPELLANT ) Vs. ITO Ward-40(3) Aayakar Bhawan, New Delhi ( RESPONDENT ) ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 05/02/2019 of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, (hereinafter referred to CIT (Appeals )Civic Centre, New Delhi, for assessment year 2010-11. Assessee by : None Department by: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D. R.; Date of Hearing 04.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement 11.05.2023 2 ITA No. 1968/Del/2020 Nirmala Devi Vs. ITO 2. The assessee has raised the following substantive ground of appeal :- “1. That the order passed by the Ld. C1T (A) u/s 271C was incorrect, bad in law and void ah initio. 2. That the order passed by the Ld. C1T (A) u/s 271C was incorrect, bad in law as the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271 shows gross non-application of mind on part of AO while issuing the notice, evident from the fact that the irrelevant portions of the said notice have not been struck off, thereby also not clearly stating under which limb of section 271(1 )(c) the notice has been issued for i.e. for furnishing inaccurate particulars or for concealment of income. Hence, the notice was illegal and untenable in law. 3. That the order passed by the Ld. C1T (A) u/s 271C was incorrect, bad in law as the penalty order passed under section 271 (l)(c) suffers from gross negligence on part of the AO as the same has been issued for both the limbs of section 271 (1 )(c) i.e. for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, thereby imposing the penalty under both the limbs of the section 271(1 )(c). Hence, the penalty order under section 271 (1 )(c) is illegal and untenable in law as the charge of penalty is not firm and shows non- application of mind and diffidence on part of the AO, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 4. That the order passed by the Ld. C1T (A) u/s 271C was incorrect, bad in law it affirmed the order of the AO who had erred in facts and law since cash deposit of Rs. 36,23,000 have been made in a joint account, with appellant /assessee being the secondary 3 ITA No. 1968/Del/2020 Nirmala Devi Vs. ITO account holder. The appellant / assessee was not operating the said account and hence have no relation whatsoever to the impugned unexplained cash deposits and therefore cannot be said to have concealed particulars or furnished inaccurate particulars of her income. 5. That the AO has erred in law and facts in imposing penalty under section 271(1 )(c) on the appellant in view of the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. None appeared for the Assessee even after issuing notices several times to the Assessee, considering the issues involved in the present Appeal, we deem it fit to hear the Ld. DR and dispose of the present Appeal. 4. There is a delay of 625 days in filing the present Appeal. An application for condonation of delay has been filed by the Assessee contending that the ‘Assessee came to know about the impugned order when the demand was pressed by the Department, since the assessee is an old woman, she was not aware of the circumstances which resulted in filing the Appeal belatedly’, thus prayed for condoning the delay in filing the present Appeal. Considering the above facts and circumstances and also considering the fact that the Assessee had been given the relief in the quantum proceedings by remanding the matter to the file of the A.O. and for the reason stated in the Application for condonation of delay, the delay of 625 days in filing the present Appeal is hereby condoned. 4 ITA No. 1968/Del/2020 Nirmala Devi Vs. ITO 5. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material on record. It is brought to our notice that by the Ld. DR that in the quantum Appeal filed by the Assessee, the Tribunal in ITA No. 1967/Del/2020 for Assessment Year 2010-11 vide order dated 09/12/2021, remanded the matter to the file of the A.O. with a direction to the assessee to furnish necessary evidence to show that the cash found to be deposited in the SB Account was that of the Assessee’s son and further the A.O. is directed to examine the evidence and decide the issue afresh giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. Considering the above fact that in the quantum Appeal the matter has been remanded to the file of Assessing Officer, the penalty order dated 25/05/2018 does not survive. Accordingly, the present appeal deserves to be allowed by setting aside the penalty order. However, the A.O. is at liberty to pass fresh penalty order in accordance with law after giving effect to the order of the ITA No. 1967/Del/2020 in case the Assessing Officer deems fit. 7. In the result, the Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on : 11/05/2023 . Sd/- Sd/- ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 11/05/2023 *R.N, Sr. PS 5 ITA No. 1968/Del/2020 Nirmala Devi Vs. ITO Copy forwarded to :- 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI