INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI

I.T.A .No.-1286/Del/2015  ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10
Hemlata Mittal (Appellant) vs. DCIT (Respondent)
Date of Order: 23-12-2015

ORDER

PER DIVA SINGH, JM
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 19.01.2015 of CIT(A)-XXIV, New Delhi pertaining to 2009-10 assessment year.

2. The Ld. AR inviting attention to the grounds raised submitted that the penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) which has been upheld in appeal by the CIT(A) is assailed by the assessee in the present proceedings. Inviting attention to the order of the ITAT in ITA No.1285/Del/2015 dated 08.10.2015 in the case of the assessee it was submitted that the additions made by the AO in the quantum proceedings stood set aside back to the AO. Accordingly it was his limited prayer that since the additions made by the AO no longer stand in the eyes of the law, the penalty order may also be set aside. Referring to the order it was submitted that out of the total addition of Rs.5,50,000/- Rs.2,00,000/- was sent back for verifying whether the account of Sh. Nishant Bansal referred was Kotak Mahindra Bank or not. For the said purpose, attention was invited to para 16 of the said order. Addressing the remaining additions of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/-, attention was invited to para 15 of the said order so as to contend that these additions stood deleted. Accordingly it was his submission that if at all in the remand proceedings, the AO still not convinced in regard to the addition of Rs.2,00,000/- pertaining to Sh. Nishant Bansal at that stage he may consider the levy of the penalty but as far as the present proceedings are concerned the penalty order upheld by the CIT(A) on facts cannot be sustained. Considering the order of the ITAT, the Ld. Sr. DR did not make any objections to the prayer of the Ld. AR.

3. The relevant facts of the case are that the assessee was subjected to search on 26.08.2008 of Locker No.488, Key No.38, Federal bank Ltd, 6, Raghunath Nagar, M.G.Road, Agra, U.P on account of the search carried out u/s 132 out in the Rajdarbar Group of cases. The AO in view of the additions made in the assessment order initiated the penalty proceedings qua the additions of Rs.5,50,000/-. The Co-ordinate Bench while the passing the order in the quantum proceedings has appreciated the background of the case in the following manner:-

“2. Brief facts of the case are that search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the I.T.Act was carried out in Rajdarbar Group of cases on 31.07.2008 and in the case of assessee on 26.08.2008 at Locker No.488, Key No.38, Federal bank Ltd., 6, Raghunath Nagar, M.G.Road, Agra.”

3.1. The issues in the quantum proceedings in the aforesaid order have been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench in the following manner:-

3. “The assessee had filed her return of income declaring an income of Rs.1,50,590/-. The AO observed that assessee was deriving salary income from M/s Geeta Pipal, Agra and interest income on loan given to M/s Ratan Diessels, Agra, SH. Ankil Agarwal and SH. Nishant Bansal and interest income on savings bank account. From the bank pass book of savings bank account in the Federal bank Ltd., Agra, the AO noticed that three high volume cheques were deposited. He required the assessee to explain the source and nature of such credits with supporting documents. No details were furnished before the AO. THE AO completed the assessment after making addition of Rs.5,50,000/- in respect of following unexplained credits in the bank account:-

3.2. It is seen that in the quantum proceeding the Co-ordinate Bench in paras 15 to 17 allowed relief to the assessee to the extent of Rs.3,50,000/- and the addition of Rs.2,00,000/- was set aside for verification. In view thereof, we hold that the penalty order in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case does not survive and the same is to be quashed. Qua the addition of Rs.2,00,000/- where verification has been directed by the Co-ordinate Bench the AO in the eventuality, the addition is sustained in the remand proceedings would be at liberty to consider the feasibility of initiation of the penalty proceedings. Accordingly, as far as the impugned order is concerned, we find that on account of the afore-said reasons it cannot be sustained. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed and the penalty order is directed to be quashed. The said order was pronounced on the date of hearing itself in the open Court.

4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open court on 23rd of December, 2015.

(O.P.KANT)                             (DIVA SINGH)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER        JUDICIAL MEMBER