ACIT, CC-18, New Delhi V. Braham Arenja, New Delhi

ITA 2177/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4660 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-04-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 11-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUMAN MALIK
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 153A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2177/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2006-07 ACIT, CC-18, New Delhi Vs. Sh. Braham Arenja, E-564, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi PAN :AADPA1953D (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM: This appeal by the Revenue is against order dated 14.12.2018 of learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi, deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2006-07. 2. As could be seen from record, there is a delay of two days in filing the present appeal. After perusing the contents of the Appellant by Mrs. Suman Malik, Sr. DR Respondent by Sh. A. T. Panda, Advocate Date of hearing 31.03.2022 Date of pronouncement 12.04.2022 2 ITA No. 2177/Del/2019 AY : 2006-07 application seeking condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeal is due to reasonable cause. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 3. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The factual matrix reveals, the assessee is a resident individual and had filed his return of income for the impugned assessment year declaring total income of Rs.15,03,044/-. Assessment in case of the assessee was completed under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act determining the total income at Rs.1,92,03,040/-, after making an addition of Rs.1,77,00,000/- towards alleged investment in cash in a property. Based on such addition, the Assessing Officer initiated proceeding for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and ultimately passed an order on 21.03.2016 imposing penalty of Rs.59,94,338/- alleging furnishing inaccurate particulars of income thereby concealing the income. Against the penalty order so passed, assessee preferred appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals). 4. Having found that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted by the Tribunal while deciding the quantum 3 ITA No. 2177/Del/2019 AY : 2006-07 appeal of the assessee, learned Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The aforesaid factual position remains uncontroverted before us. Thus, when the quantum of addition based on which penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed is not in existence by virtue of the order passed by the Tribunal in quantum appeal, the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot survive. 5. Thus, in our view, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly deleted the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Grounds are dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12 th April, 2022 Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 12 th April, 2022. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi