2022 (1) TMI 929 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal overturns tax penalty due to lack of opportunity for appellant.

Nanak Chand Bansal Versus DCIT, Central Circle-II Faridabad

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the penalty imposed under section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act was unjustified. This decision ... Penalty levied u/s. 271AAA - Addition of unexplained jewellery and unexplained cash - HELD THAT:- As this Tribunal has deleted the additions made by the AO in the quantum [2019 (7) TMI 1900 - ITAT DELHI] therefore, the penalty would not survive. - Appeal of the assessee is allowed. Issues:- Jurisdiction to impose penalty u/s. 271AAA- Adequate opportunity of being heard and principles of natural justice- Deletion of additions made by the AO in the quantum appealJurisdiction to impose penalty u/s. 271AAA:The appeal was filed against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon, arising from the penalty order under section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2013-14. The AO had imposed the penalty in relation to unexplained jewellery and cash additions made during the assessment under section 153A. The assessee challenged the penalty before the Ld. CIT(A) but was unsuccessful. However, it was highlighted that the Tribunal had previously deleted the additions made by the AO in the quantum appeal, rendering the penalty unjustified. The Tribunal confirmed that the penalty could not stand since the additions no longer existed due to the earlier order.Adequate opportunity of being heard and principles of natural justice:The appellant contended that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law by confirming the imposition of the penalty without providing adequate opportunity for being heard and not adhering to the principles of natural justice. However, the Tribunal, after considering the submissions and records, noted that the additions, against which the penalty was imposed, had been deleted in the quantum appeal. Consequently, the penalty levied under section 271AAA was deemed to be unwarranted and was directed to be deleted.Deletion of additions made by the AO in the quantum appeal:The Tribunal, in the quantum appeal, had previously ruled that the jewellery in question belonged to the wife of the assessee and not to the assessee. As a result, the additions made by the AO were deemed unjustified. Additionally, it was noted that the cash held by the assessee and his wife, who were senior citizens requiring medical attention, was necessary for emergency situations. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, stating that the penalty levied under section 271AAA was no longer valid due to the deletion of the additions in the quantum appeal. The decision was pronounced orally in the open court on January 11, 2022.