Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bilaspur
Pawan Kumar Agrawal, , Janjgir Champa vs Ito, Ward- 2(2),, Bilaspur(Cg) on 3 May, 2017
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR
BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.150/Rpr/2014
Assessment Year :2005-06
Pawan Kumar Agrawal, Main Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Mahima
Road, Baradwar, Dist: Complex, Vyapar Vihar,
Janjgir-Champa Bilaspur
PAN/GIR No. AGXPA 6688 F
(Appellant) .. ( Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri G.S.Agrawal, AR
Revenue by : Shri Ajit Kumar Laskar, DR
Date of Hearing : 3/05/ 2017
Date of Pronouncement : 03 /05/ 2017
ORDER
Per N.S.Saini, AM
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)- Bilaspur, dated 6.3.2014, for the assessment year 2005-06.
2. The sole grievance of the assessee in this appeal is that the ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.5,10,546/- imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2 ITA No.150/Rpr/2014
Assessment Year :2005 -06
3. The brief facts of the case are that during the year under appeal, the assessee received loan of Rs.15,22,000/- from the following persons:
Sr. No. Name of the party Amount (Rs.)
1. Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal 19,000
2. Shri Kanhayalal 18,000
3. Shri Vinod Kumar 17,000
4. Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal 3,00,000
5. Shri Mukesh Kumar Agrawal 3,00,000
6. Sri Ramesh Kumar 18,000
7. Shri Sharda Kumar Kedia 1,00,000
8. Smt. Anju Kedia 1,00,000
9. Smt. Uma Kedia 1,00,000
10. Smt. Anita Agrawal 5,50,000
Total 15,22,000
4. The Assessing Officer added the same to the income of the assessee under section 68 of the Act.
5. On appeal there-against, the CIT(A) deleted the addition vide order dated 27.1.2009 and on further appeal by the revenue to the Tribunal, the Tribunal reversed the order of the CIT(A) and restored back the order of the Assessing Officer vide order dated 30.7.2009. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.5,10,546/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
6. Before us, ld Authorised Representative of the assessee filed an order of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in the case of the assessee itself in Tax Case No. 24 of 2011 order dated 04.04.2017, which is placed on record at pages 91 to 93 of the paper book and submitted that the 3 ITA No.150/Rpr/2014 Assessment Year :2005 -06 Hon'ble Chhattishgarh High Court, Bilaspur deleted the addition of Rs.15,22,000/- made under section 68 of the Act. Therefore, he submitted that as the addition of Rs.15,22,000/- which was the basis of levy of penalty has been deleted by the Hon'ble High Court, the penalty does not survive.
7. Learned D.R. agreed to the above submissions of ld A.R. of the assessee.
8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of lower authorities and materials available on record. We find that in the instant case, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.15,22,000/- under section 68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash credit. The Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs.5,10,546/- on the same. Before us, ld A.R. has filed an order dated 4.4.2017 of Hon'ble High Court of Chhattishgarh, Bilaspur in the case of the assessee itself, wherein, it is seen that the Hon'ble High Court has deleted the addition of Rs.15,22,000/- made under section 68 of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.C.Builders vs. ACIT, 265 ITR 562 (SC) has held that "where the additions made in the assessment order, on the basis of which penalty for concealment was levied, are deleted, there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment and, therefore, in such a case, no such penalty can survive and the same is liable to be cancelled". In the instant 4 ITA No.150/Rpr/2014 Assessment Year :2005 -06 case, as the addition in quantum appeal, which was the subject matter of levying the penalty does not survive after passing of order by the Hon'ble High Court, the penalty levied also does not survive and hence, we set aside the orders of lower authorities and delete the penalty of Rs.5,10,546/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 03/05/2017 in the presence of parties.
Sd/- sd/-
(George George K) (N.S Saini)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Raipur; Dated 03/05/2017
B.K.Parida, SPS
Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. The appellant : Pawan Kumar Agrawal, Main Road, Baradwar, Dist: Janjgir-Champa
2. The respondent : ITO, Ward 2(2), Mahima Complex, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur
3. The CIT(A) Bilaspur
4. CIT, Bilaspur
5. DR, ITAT, Raipur BY ORDER,
6. Guard file.
//True Copy// SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY