2017 (11) TMI 1823

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iefly the facts of the case are that the A.O. in the assessment order noted that assessee was asked to explain source of the cash deposit in her bank account maintained with State Bank of India. The assessee attended the proceedings before A.O. and filed reply along with letter of Mr. W. Sutong that Shri P.V. Iyer was his family friend and in July, 2009, Shri P.V. Iyer informed Mr. W. Sutong about his housing loan. On 8th September, 2009, Mr. W. Sutong deposited Rs. 16 lakhs, the amount received out of his business receipts, in assessee's joint bank account with SBI Account. On learning about the transaction, Shri P.V. Iyer, husband of assessee realised that this is not right way to accept such a huge amount and he returned back the amount ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt of Rs. 15 lakhs was cancelled. The penalty for Rs. 80,000 was confirmed. 3. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and submitted that the addition of Rs. 16,18,000 in assessment year under appeal on quantum remained subject matter in appeal before ITAT, Delhi Bench in Departmental Appeal in ITA.No.4579/2013 and vide order dated 20th March, 2015, the departmental appeal has been dismissed. The Ld. CIT(A) in this case deleted the addition of Rs. 15,80,000 by considering the explanation of assessee as is noted in the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) on penalty matter. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee therefore, submitted that bonafide of the assessee is not disputed and furth....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was recorded. The Tribunal as well as the High Court held that the penalty order passed on the basis of the original assessment order could not still survive when that assessment order had been set aside because the satisfaction recorded therein for the purpose of initiation of the penalty proceedings would also not survive. On further appeals : Held, dismissing the appeals, that in the fresh assessment order there was no satisfaction recorded regarding penalty proceedings under section 271D of the Act though in that order the Assessing Officer wanted penalty proceeding to be initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, the penalty under section 271D was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied." 5....