RADHESHYAM AGARWALA,KOLKATA V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1.1, KOLKATA

CO 31/KOL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals by the revenue against the orders of the ld. CIT(A), which had deleted the penalties imposed on the assessee, Radheshyam Agarwala, for the assessment years 2016-2017 to 2020-2021. The penalties were initially levied following a search operation related to the assessee's son, during which the assessee agreed to disclose certain amounts. The main legal contention revolved around whether the penalties were justified given that the returns filed in response to the notice under section 153C were accepted without any additions. The CIT(A) found that there was no direct search on the assessee, and the penalties were not justified as there was no tax evasion or concealment of income.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 360567 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 20-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Other Referred Cases: Shri Neeraj Jindal vs. DCIT, M. Panchamuthu vs. CIT, B.G.Shirke Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, Orient Press Ltd. vs. CIT, Shrikant Mohta vs. CIT
• Laws Referred To: Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, Section 270A of the Act, Section 153C of the Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAVEEN KISHORE
• Assessee Lawyers: S.M. SURANA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.2603 - 2607/KOL/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा /AYrs. : 2016-2017 to 2020-2021) DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata Vs Radheshyam Agarwala, 2B, Tarachand Dutt Street, 2nd Floor, Kolkata PAN No. :ACZPA 7312 E AND Cross Objection Nos.27-31/KOL/2024 (Arising out of ITA Nos.2603-2607/Kol/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा /AYrs. : 2016-2017 to 2020-2021) Radheshyam Agarwala, 2B, Tarachand Dutt Street, 2nd Floor, Kolkata Vs DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata PAN No. :ACZPA 7312 E (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri S.M.Surana, Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 20/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 20/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : The revenue has filed four appeals out of which ITA No.2603/Kol/2024 is filed against the order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the ld. CIT(A), Kolkata-20 thereby deleting the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment year 2016- 2017. ITA Nos.2604 to 2607/Kol/2024 are filed by the revenue against the separate orders passed by the ld. CIT(A), Kolkata-20, all dated 29.08.2024 thereby deleting the penalty levied u/s.270A of the Act for the assessment years 2017-2018 to 2020-2021. The assessee has also filed cross objections being CO Nos.27 to 31/Kol/2024 arising out of all the ITA Nos.2603-2607/Kol/2024 & CO Nos.27-31/Kol/2024 2 present appeals filed by the revenue, thereby supporting the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) in all the cases. 2. Shri S.M.Surana, Advocate appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT-DR appeared on behalf of the revenue. 3. At the outset, we find that the appeals of the revenue have been filed belatedly by 49 days. In this regard, the department has filed application for condonation of delay in all the appeals stating therein sufficient reasons which are plausible and not found to be false. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 49 days delay in each appeal of the revenue and appeals of the revenue are admitted for hearing along with the cross objections filed by the assessee. 4. Since the issues involved in all the appeals of the revenue are similar and identical except different in figures, therefore, all the appeals of the revenue are disposed off by this consolidated order. 5. It was submitted by the ld. CIT-DR that there was a search conducted on certain share brokers on 30.11.2018. Consequently the search was also conducted in the case of assessee’s son Shri Prakash Agarwal on 19.02.2020. In the course of search the assessee’s son had given an undertaking that declarations would be filed in the case of assessee’s father disclosing various amounts. In response to notice u/s.153C of the Act, the assessee herein being father filed his return disclosing various amounts. The returns were accepted and the assessments were completed without any further additions. Penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for the A.Y.2016-2017 and u/s.270A of the Act in ITA Nos.2603-2607/Kol/2024 & CO Nos.27-31/Kol/2024 3 the assessment years 2017-2018 to 2020-2021 were levied on the assessee. It was the submission that on appeal, ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalties levied on three grounds, i.e. (i) there was no satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer of the present assessee and there was just a general document; (ii) reason being there was no search in the case of the assessee per se and the search was in the case of assessee’s son and consequently there was no tax sought to be evaded; and (iii) the returns filed in response to the notice u/s.153C of the Act was accepted and as the returns u/s.153C of the Act have been accepted in view of the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Neeraj Jindal, reported in [2017] 393 ITR 1 (Delhi), the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M. Panchamuthu, reported in [2007] 295 ITR 502 (Mad), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of B.G.Shirke Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd., reported in [2017] 79 taxmann.com 306 (Bom) and in the case of Orient Press Ltd., reported in [2008] 21 SOT 25, as referred to by the ld. CIT(A), the penalty in all the cases have been cancelled. It was the submission that the disclosure has been made by the assesse only at the consequential search on the assessee’s son and the only fact that the penalty is to be levied is as the assessee concealed his income in comparison to the original return filed. It was the submission that the order of the ld. CIT(A) in the appeals under consideration is liable to be reversed. 6. In reply, ld. AR submitted that recently the Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Shrikant Mohta, reported in 414 ITR 270 (Calcutta) ITA Nos.2603-2607/Kol/2024 & CO Nos.27-31/Kol/2024 4 has categorically held that when a return is filed u/s.153A of the Act, the same is to be considered as return u/s.139(1) of the Act. It was the submission that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has also reiterated the views taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Neeraj Jindal, the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M. Panchamuthu, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of B.G.Shirke Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd., reported in [2017] 79 taxmann.com 306 (Bom), referred to supra. It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) has considered the three reasons for cancelling the penalty. It was the prayer that on all the three grounds, the issue have been held in favour of the assessee, thus, the penalty as cancelled in all the cases of the assessee by the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be upheld. 7. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) clearly shows that the ld. CIT(A) has considered the following reasons for cancelling the penalty :- i) there was no search on the assesse; ii) search was conducted on the assessee’s son; iii) the return filed by the assesse u/s.153C of the Act has been accepted and the assessment was completed without making any further addition; iv) the satisfaction is not a satisfaction as required under the provisions of Section 153C of the Act; v) there is no incriminating material which has been used by the AO in the course of assessment for making any addition and only the returned income has been accepted. ITA Nos.2603-2607/Kol/2024 & CO Nos.27-31/Kol/2024 5 8. A perusal of the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shrikant Mohta, referred to supra, also clearly shows that once the returned income has been accepted, though the return is filed u/s.153C of the Act, the same would have been considered as return filed u/s.139(1) of the Act and consequently no penalty shall be leviable as there is no concealment of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income nor mis-reported or under-reported of any income. The revenue has not been able to dislodge the findings as arrived at by the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the penalty. We find no error in the order of the ld. CIT(A). In these circumstances, the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed. 9. A perusal of the cross objections filed by the assesse shows that the same are in support of the orders of the ld. CIT(A). As we have already dismissed the appeals of the revenue and upheld the orders of the ld. CIT(A), the cross objections filed by the assesse become infructuous and the same are dismissed. 10. In the result, all the appeals of the revenue and cross objections of the assesse are dismissed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 20/05/2025. Sd/- (RAKESH MISHRA) Sd/- (GEORGE MATHAN) लेखा सदस्य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यधनयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER कोलकाता Kolkata; ददनाांक Dated 20/05/2025 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S. ITA Nos.2603-2607/Kol/2024 & CO Nos.27-31/Kol/2024 6 आदेश की प्रनतललपप अग्रेपर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेशधिुसधर/ BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant- 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent- 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), 4. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 5. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण, कोलकाता / DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यापपत प्रतत //True Copy// "