IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH: G: NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. 2016/Del/2013
Assessment Year 1999-00
Suman Sharma vs. ITO
11, Sainik Vihar ward 25(1)
Pitampura New Delhi.
New Delhi.
(PAN AWDPS1138A)
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Shri Satish Aggarwal, CA
Respondent by : Shri Rakesh Kumar, Sr. DR
ORDER
PER GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT (A)
order dated 11.1.2013. The order of the CIT(A) emanated from the order of the
ITO Ward 25 (1), New Delhi passed u/s 271(1)(c), imposing a penalty of Rs.
6,24,340/-.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows :
Assessee as an individual, filed her return of income for asstt. year 1999-
2000 on 8.2.2006 declaring an amount of Rs. 49,400/-. Assessment was
completed u/s 143 (3) read with section 148 vide order dated 23.3.2006 fixing a
total income of Rs. 21,67,800/-. The AO made an addition of Rs. 21,18,400/- on
2
ITA No. 2016/Del/13
account of unexplained bank deposits / loans. The assessee filed an appeal
before the CIT(A) who confirmed the assessment order.
3. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings on 7.3.2008 by issuance
of show cause notice to the assessee. Since the assessee was not able to prove
the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of the
transaction, the Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 6,24,340/- u/s
271(1)© of the Act. The assesee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) against the
imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal
since there was no appearance on the part of the assesee during the hearing
dates The assessee being aggrieved has filed the present appeal before us
raising following grounds of appeal :-
1. "The order of the CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalty u/s
271(1) (c) amounting to Rs. 6,24,340/- is arbitrary, biased,
bad in law and facts and circumstances of the case.
2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the levy of
penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 6,24,340/- disregarding the explanation
of the appellant.
3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c)
as the appellant had neither furnished inaccurate particulars of its
income nor concealed its income."
4. The Ld. Authorised Representative of the assessee submitted the quantum
assessment was set aside by the Hon'ble ITAT in ITA No. 776/2007 by order
dated 25.7.2008. It was submitted that pursuant to the Tribunal order, fresh
assessment order was passed on 30.12.2009 and penalty proceedings u/s
3
ITA No. 2016/Del/13
271(1)© of the Act was separately initiated in the said assessment order. It was
submitted the present penalty order which arise out of the original assessment
order dated 23.3.2006 does not survive and same need to be quashed.
5. Ld. DR present was duly heard.
6. We have heard rival submission and perused the material on record. The
present penalty order emanates from the assessment order dated 23.3.2006.
The assessment order dated 23.3.2006 has been set aside by the Tribunal in its
order dated 25.7.2008 (ITA No. 776/2007). Pursuant to the Tribunal order in ITA
No. 776/2007 dated 25.7.2008 fresh assessment order was passed u/s 143 (3) /
148 / 254 vide order dated 30.12.2009. In the fresh assessment order, penalty
proceedings u/s 271(1)© was separately initiated for concealment of income.
Therefore the present penalty on the basis of the original assessment order
dated 23.3.2006 does not survive for adjudication and the same is quashed. It
ordered accordingly.
7. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed.
This decision was pronounced in the open court on 22nd August, 2014.
sd/- sd/-
(T.S. KAPOOR) ( GEORGE GEORGE K)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Date 22nd August, 2014
*Veena
Copy of order forwarded to:
1. Appellant
4
ITA No. 2016/Del/13
2. Respondent
3. CIT(A)
4. CIT
5. DR
By Order
Asstt. Registrar, ITAT
|