PAWAN KUMAR SHARMA,NOIDA V. ITO, WARD-5(2)(1), NOIDA, NOIDA

ITA 5348/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Pawan Kumar Sharma, the appellant, who was penalized by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) for unexplained investment in immovable property amounting to Rs.70,00,000/- during the Assessment Year 2011-12. The ITO reopened the assessee's case and made a consequential assessment under sections 144 and 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, leading to the imposition of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld this penalty. However, the Tribunal, in a separate quantum appeal, found the additions made by the ITO and upheld by the CIT(A) to be unsustainable, leading to the deletion of the penalty.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 789569 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 29-08-2025
• Other Referred Cases: ITA No. 5952/Del/2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: NEERAJ MANGLA
• Keywords: Set aside; Additional evidence
• Section: 144; 271(1)(c); 68

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.5348/Del/2025, A.Y. 2011-12 Pawan Kumar Sharma, E-41, BETA-1, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, UP PAN: ABRPS9989C Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Income Tax Office, Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Neeraj Mangla, CA Respondent by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 21/11/2025 Date of Pronouncement 27/11/2025 ORDER PER AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM This appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2011-12 is directed against the order dated 30.10.2024 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, New Delhi [‘CIT(A)’]. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: - “1. That the penalty order passed by Ld. AO as well as the appellate order passed by Ld. CIT(A) upholding levy of penalty are bad in law and have been passed in contravention of prevailing law as well as facts of the case, therefore liable to be annulled. 2. That the notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on dual grounds of concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income is illegal and not tenable under the law. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.5348 /Del/2025 Pawan Kumar Sharma 2 3. That the penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is further illegal and not sustainable in law as the Ld. AO in the penalty order could not specify the charge for levy of penalty. i.e. whether the same is for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 4. That the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is further illegal and not tenable under the law as the same was levied by Ld. AO and was upheld by Ld. CIT(A) mechanically due to the fact that the additions are made to the income of assessee and were upheld in appellate proceedings ignoring the fact that the assessee furnished bonafide explanations and evidences w.r.t. alleged income and same were rejected only due to technicalities. 5. That the penalty of Rs.15,49,120/- upheld by Ld. CIT(A) is not tenable under the law as the assessee has neither furnished inaccurate particulars of his income nor has concealed any particulars of his income. 6. That the penalty order and the appellate orders passed by in case of assessee are further illegal and not tenable under the law because of being passed without mentioning DIN in the body of said orders. 7. That the assessee company seeks leave to add, alter, modify or delete any ground of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings.” 3. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee has acquired an immovable property worth of Rs.70,00,000/- during the relevant year. Based on this information, the case of assessee was reopened and consequential assessment was completed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’), wherein the Ld. Assessing Officer (‘AO’), holding the investment of Rs.70,00,000/- in immovable property as unexplained, taxed the same accordingly. Dissatisfied with the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), but did not succeed. However, he succeeded in the Tribunal in quantum appeal. The relevant part of quantum Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.5348 /Del/2025 Pawan Kumar Sharma 3 appeal of assessee decided by the coordinate bench in ITA No. 5952/Del/2024 reads as under: “7. From examination of record in light of aforesaid rival contentions, it is crystal clear that Ld. CIT(A) relied on non-PAN based AIR Information received by Ld. AO regarding purchase of immoveable property for Rs.70,00,000/-by the assessee. During assessment proceedings, assessee did not appear. Ex parte assessment was completed by the Ld. AO vide order dated 30.10.2018. 7.1 In the appellate proceedings, assessee filed additional evidence. Remand report of Ld. AO was received. The assessee gave details of FDR which were accepted to be correct. 7.2. In para 4.4.4.2, Ld. CIT(A) held that assessee has not filed any confirmation report which has been challenged by the submissions made by Learned Authorized Representative for the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) in para 4.4.4.4 failed to consider receipts from M/s. Sarla Aluminium Structure Pvt. Ltd and M/s. M/s. Sarla Glass Traders and receipt of Rs.7,00,000/- from Nirmaan Infrastructure submitted by the assessee. The above referred evidence submitted by appellant/assessee clearly showed discharge of onus under Section 68 of the Act. Resultantly, the additions made by Ld. AO and partially upheld by La CIT(A) being unsustainable are set aside. Ground of appeal nos. 1 to 5 are accepted.” 5. After dismissal of the quantum appeal by the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. AO, on the above-mentioned addition of Rs.70,00,000/-, levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which was sustained by the Ld. CIT(A). Aggrieved with the said penalty order, the assessee filed this appeal. 6. At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative (‘AR’) of the assessee submitted that the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act did not survive as the quantum addition made by the Ld. AO, on which the penalty Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.5348 /Del/2025 Pawan Kumar Sharma 4 levied, was deleted by the Tribunal vide order dated 12.01.2025 in ITA No. 5952/Del/2024. To which, the Ld. Sr. DR appeared in agreement. 7. We have heard both parties and have perused the material available on the record. In view of the fact that the quantum appeal based on which the penalty levied does not survive after the Tribunal order in ITA No. 5952/Del/2024; therefore, the penalty levied by the Ld. AO is held non- surviving. Consequentially, the penalty of Rs.15,49,120/- levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is hereby deleted. Resultantly, the assessee gets relief. Other grounds, in view of the above finding, become academic; hence, the same are not being adjudicated here. 8. In the result, the appeal of assessee stands allowed as above. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th November, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (AVDHESH KUMARMISHRA) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated:27/11/2025 Binita, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. Sr. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "