Senthil Kumar Angamuthu, CHENNAI V. JCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 951/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8005 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 15-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 13-04-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: S VIDYA
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI . , . , BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DUVVURU R L REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER I . T.A. NO S . 950 AND 951 /MDS/201 6 ASSESSMENT YEAR :20 11 - 12 SHRI SENTHIL KUMAR ANGAMUTHU, C/O AKBER RIFA & CO., AP - 122, 6 TH STREET, 11 TH MAIN ROAD, AF - BLOCK, ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI 600 0 4 0 . [PAN:A FIPA6241C ] VS. THE JOINT COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX , NON - CORPORATE RANGE 1 4 , CHENNAI . ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : MS. S. VIDYA , C.A. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH , JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 15 . 0 9 .201 6 / DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT : 25 . 11 .201 6 / O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER : BOTH THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE SAME ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDER S OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 1 4, CHENNAI, DATED 2 9 .02.201 6 RELEV ANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 11 - 12 PASSED UNDER SECTIONS 271E AND 271D OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [ ACT IN SHORT] . I.T.A. NO S . 950 & 951 /M/ 16 2 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL , DEALING WITH THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE AND FILED HIS RETURN OF INCO ME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 11 - 12 ON 08 .0 8 .20 11 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF . 3,99,609 / - . THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED ON 21.03.2014 ASSESSING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT .14,20,780/ - . SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271E OF THE ACT AND LEVIED PENALTY OF . 10,25,000/ - AS WELL AS .14,80,000/ - UNDER SECTION 271D OF THE ACT . 3. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE PENALTY LE VIED UNDER SECTION S 271E AND 271D OF THE ACT. 4. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. BY FILING WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND RELYING ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V. SMT. DIMPAL YADAV IN ITA NO. 175 OF 2015 AND CIT V. AKHIL ESH KUMAR YADAV, ETAWAH IN ITA 71 OF 2013, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PLEADED THAT THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION S 271E AND 271D OF THE ACT SHOULD BE DELETED. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. I.T.A. NO S . 950 & 951 /M/ 16 3 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS PASSED ON 21.03.2014 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT .10,21,180/ - . THE MAJOR ADDITION WAS ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK TO THE EXTENT OF .10,21,180/ - . AGAINST THE QUANTUM ADDITION, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AG AINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS REMITTED THE MATTER BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REDO THE ASSESSMENT BY CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE FIRST TIME. THUS, THE QUANTUM ADDITION DID NOT ATTAIN FINALITY. AS SUCH, AGAINST THE PENALTY ORDER, THERE EXIST S NO ASSESSMENT ORDER . UNDER THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT W HEN THE COORDINATE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS REMITTED THE MATTER [QUANTUM ADDITION] FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 29.07.2016 IN I.T.A. NO.1268/MDS/2016 ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION , THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT DECIDE THE LEVY OF PENALTY ON MERITS. OUR VIEW IS FORTIFIE D BY THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAMAKRISHNA SONS (P) LTD. 192 ITR I.T.A. NO S . 950 & 951 /M/ 16 4 282. ACCORDINGLY, THE PENALTY ORDER S PASSED UNDER SECTIONS 271E AND 271D OF THE ACT STAND QUASHED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS FREE TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AFRESH AFTER COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT. 6. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 25 TH NOVEMBER , 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( DUVV URU RL REDDY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 25 . 11 .201 6 VM/ - / COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT , 2. / RESPONDENT , 3. ( ) / CIT(A) , 4. / CIT , 5. / DR & 6. / GF.