Punam Duggal, New Delhi V. ACIT central Circle 4, New Delhi

ITA 5445/DEL/2019

AI Insights

The case involves Punam Duggal, the Assessee, who appealed against the penalties imposed by the Assessing Officer following a seizure and search operation conducted by the Revenue Department. The penalties were based on additions made to the Assessee's income for unexplained credit entries in her bank account for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13. Initially, the Assessing Officer made these additions, which were later enhanced by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). However, the Tribunal had earlier deleted these additions in a separate set of appeals, leading to the current appeal against the penalties. The Tribunal found that since the basis for the penalties (the additions) had been removed, the penalties themselves could not be justified and thus were deleted.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 116388 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 18-01-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 18-06-2019
• Other Referred Cases: K.C. Builders vs. ACIT, 135 Taxman 461 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 271(1)(c); 153A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 5444 &5445/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Punam Duggal, HN-1406F, 2 nd Floor, Gali No. 13, Govindpuri, Kalkaji, New Delhi PAN: AESPD6713K VersuS ACIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Vijay Kumar Singla, Ld. CA Respondent by : Sh. S.L. Verma, Ld. Sr. DR Date of hearing: 19.01.2023 Date of order : 31.01.2023 ORDER PER N.K. CHOUDHRY, J.M. These appeals have been preferred by the Assessee against a consolidated order dated 07.06.2019 in various appeals including of the Assessee, impugned herein, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)- 23, New Delhi (in short “Ld. Commissioner”), u/s. 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 250(6) of ITA No. 5747/Del/2015 2 the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. 2. Brief facts, common to both these appeals and relevant for their adjudication, are that on the basis of seizure and search action carried out by the Revenue Department on dated 29.12.2015, the Assessing Officer, vide assessment orders dated 27.12.2017 u/s. 153A of the Act, made additions of Rs.72,49,208/- and Rs.49,47,406/- respectively for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 on account of unexplained credit entries in the bank account of the Assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the above additions, the Assessee preferred first appeal before the ld. Commissioner, who vide appellate orders made enhancement to the tune of Rs.24,00,000/- and Rs.32,00,000/- respectively. 4. The Assessing Officer thereafter, initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and ultimately imposed a ITA No. 5747/Del/2015 3 penalty of Rs.9,27,000/- and Rs.13,36,000/-, which stood affirmed by the ld. Commissioner vide consolidated order dated 07.06.2019 passed in appeals filed against the penalty orders. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the Assessee is in these appeals before us. 5. The ld. AR of the Assessee, at the outset, claimed that the Assessee filed appeals (ITA No. 1810/Del/2019 & 1811/Del/2019) for the years under consideration before the Tribunal, along with batch of 51 group appeals and the Hon’ble Tribunal vide consolidated order dated 19.01.2021 allowed the quantum appeals of the Assessee by deleting the additions on the basis of which the impugned penalties were levied against the Assessee. It was therefore claimed that once the additions on the basis of which impugned penalties are imposed, stood deleted, the impugned penalties levied against the Assessee cannot survive. 6. The ld. DR though supported the impugned order of the ld. Commissioner, but could not refute the factual claim of the Assessee. ITA No. 5747/Del/2015 4 7. We have given thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. It is not in dispute that the quantum additions on the basis of which the impugned penalties were levied against the Assessee, stood deleted by the Tribunal vide order dated 19.01.2021. We, therefore, observe that once the aforesaid quantum additions do not survive, the very basis for imposing penalties u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act stands collapsed and therefore, there remains no justification for survival of the impugned penalties. Therefore, laying our hands on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.C. Builders vs. ACIT, 135 Taxman 461 (SC), as relied by the Assessee, wherein it is held that where the additions made in the assessment order, on the basis of which penalty for concealment was levied, are deleted by the ITAT or otherwise, the penalty cannot stand by itself and is liable to be cancelled, we are inclined to delete the impugned penalties imposed against the Assessee. Consequently, both the appeals of the Assessee deserves to be allowed. ITA No. 5747/Del/2015 5 8. In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31/01/2-23. Sd/- Sd/- (DR. BRR KUMAR) (N.K. CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *aks/-