VIKESH CHATURBHUJ AGRAWAL, Nagpur V. I.T.O. WARD -4(1), Nagpur

ITA 386/NAG/2016

AI Insights

The case involves Vikesh Chaturbhuj Agrawal, the appellant, who appealed against the penalty levied by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Nagpur, under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2007-08. The penalty was imposed following an assessment that included undisclosed 'on-money' transactions related to agricultural land purchases. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the penalty, which was contested at the Tribunal. The Tribunal's decision focused on the lack of specific findings in the penalty order regarding which particulars were inaccurate, leading to the allowance of the appellant's appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 136761 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-08-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 17-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 09-06-2016
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RASHMI MATHUR
• Section: 148; 271(1)(c); 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR – VIRTUAL COURT BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.386/NAG/2016 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Vikesh Chaturbhuj Agrawal, 23, Shradha, Middle Ring Road, Wardhmannagar, Nagpur- 440008. PAN : ABJPA9338H Vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Nagpur. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Nagpur [‘the CIT(A)’] dated 30.12.2015 for the assessment year 2007-08 confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.11,21,383/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual deriving income under the head “business”. The Return of Income for the assessment year 2007-08 was filed on 29.10.2007 declaring total income of Rs.3,22,870/-. Against the said return of Assessee by : Shri Nilesh Sindhwani Revenue by : Smt. Rashmi Mathur Date of hearing : 18.07.2023 Date of pronouncement : 04.08.2023 ITA No.386/NAG/2016 2 income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Nagpur (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 22.12.2009 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act at a total income of Rs.4,72,870/-. Subsequently, on receipt of the information that the appellant had paid on-money consideration in cash over and above the consideration mentioned in the sale deed at the time of purchase of agricultural land, the Assessing Officer had issued a notice u/s 148 on 09.08.2011. Thereafter, the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act was completed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 26.03.2013 at total income of Rs.37,76,536/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer brought to tax alleged on-money consideration paid in cash of Rs.14,16,666/- and Rs.18,87,000/- at the time of purchase of agricultural lands, the source of which remains unexplained. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A), who had confirmed the addition. 3. Even on further appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT vide ITA No.407/NAG/2013 for A.Y. 2007-08, order dated 03.07.2023 had confirmed the order of the ld. CIT(A). 4. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer had proceeded to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) vide order dated 29.10.2013 holding that the ITA No.386/NAG/2016 3 assessee guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and imposed penalty of Rs.11,21,383/-. 5. Being aggrieved by the penalty order, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order confirmed the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 7. It is contended before us that the Assessing Officer ought not to have levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) by holding the assessee guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income without giving a finding as to which particulars filed by the assessee are found to be false. 8. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR submits that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is well reasoned and a speaking order confirming the levy of penalty, therefore, requires no interference. 9. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present appeal relates to the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. On mere perusal of the order of penalty u/s 271(1)(c), it would be clear that the Assessing Officer had levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, but, the penalty order does not disclose which particulars filed by the assessee are found to be inaccurate by the Assessing Officer resulting into the addition. It is equally settled position of ITA No.386/NAG/2016 4 law that mere addition made by the Assessing Officer does not entail levy of penalty. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and, accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty of Rs.11,21,383/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee stand allowed. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced on this 04 th day of August, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 04 th August, 2023. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-4, Nagpur. 4. The Pr. CIT-3, Nagpur. 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, नागपुर / DR, ITAT, Nagpur. 6. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.