GOPALLAL BHERUBHAI KUMAVAT, Ahmedabad V. ITO WARD 3(2)(2), AHMEDABAD , Ahmedabad

ITA 368/AHD/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7660 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-04-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 23-04-2024
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: URJIT B. SHAH
• Section: 69; 271(1)(c); 144

Judgement Text

ITA No.368/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Page 1 of 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.368/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Gopallal Bherubhai Kumavat, C/103, Madhusudan Residency, Near Landmak Sarvodaya Hotel, Moraiya, Gujarat – 382 213 [PAN – BCKPK 8824 P] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 3(2)(2), Ahmedabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Sulabh Padshah, AR Revenue by Shri Urjit B. Shah, Sr. DR Da t e o f He a rin g 24.04.2024 Da t e o f P ro n o u n ce m e n t 26.04.2024 O R D E R This appeal is filed by the assessee against order dated 01.01.2024 passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty levied of Rs.3,96,596/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act on the ground that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income. On facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant has not at all concealed any particulars of income u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. It is therefore submitted that the penalty levied of Rs.3,96,596/- is incorrect on facts and illegal under the provisions of the Income Tax Act and the same be deleted. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the penalty levied of Rs.3,96,596/- on addition made on account of unexplained cash deposits of Rs.17,70,150/- u/s. 69 of Income tax Act. It is submitted that the Appellant has filed complete details and documentary evidences before lower authorities during quantum proceedings duly justifying above cash deposits made as business receipts. It is therefore settled law that mere making an addition by not accepting the details/explanation given by the appellant can ITA No.368/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Page 2 of 3 never tantamount to concealment of income under the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty so levied of Rs.3,96,596/- invoking the provision of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is completely illegal and unjustifiable and the same be deleted in the interest of justice. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the complete details and records justifying that the Appellant has not concealed any particulars of Income as per provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act could not be filed before him due to circumstances beyond control of the Appellant at that time. It is therefore submitted that the penalty so levied by Id. AO and confirmed by CIT(A) of Rs.3,96,596/- is illegal and unwarranted and the same may please be deleted affording opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. The same please be held accordingly. 4. The Order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and contrary to the provisions of law and facts. It is submitted that the same be held so now.” 3. The assessee did not file return of income for the Assessment Year 2011- 12 but had deposited cash of Rs.17,70,150/- in SB Account. The case of the assessee was reopened and assessment under section 144 read with Section 147 of the Income Tx Act, 1961 was completed on 11.12.2018 assessing total income at Rs.17,70,150/- thereby making addition under Section 69 of the Act. Subsequently, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated in respect of concealing the particular of income. Show cause notice dated 11.12.2018 was issued to the assessee. After taking cognisance of the assessee’s explanation, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.3,96,596/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the Penalty Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the very addition under Section 69 of the Act was not deleted by the Tribunal vide order dated 28.03.2024 in ITA No.918/Ahd/2023 in assessee’s matter. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act does not survive. 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the penalty order and the order of CIT(A). ITA No.368/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Page 3 of 3 7. Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The very basis of the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was deleted by the Tribunal vide order dated 28.03.2024 and, therefore, penalty addition does not survive, as such, the addition is deleted. Appeal of the assessee is thus allowed. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 26 th April, 2024. Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) Judicial Member Ahmedabad, the 26 th April, 2024 PBN/* Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad benches, Ahmedabad