IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ASTHA CHANDRA JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.6725/Del/2018 Assessment Year: 2007-08

ITA No.4461/Del/2018 Assessment Year: 2006-07

ITA No.4461/Del/2018 (Cross. Objection No.199/Del/2018)

ITA No.4461/Del/2018 Assessment Year: 2006-07

Appellant by Sh. M.P. Rastogi, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr DR Date of hearing: 25/09/2023 Date of Pronouncement: 04/10/2023

ORDER

PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM:

ITA NO.4461/Del/2018 is the appeal by the revenue preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-36, New Delhi dated 23.03.2018 and ITA No.6725/Del/2018 is the appeal by the assessee preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-28, New Delhi dated 19.09.2018 pertaining to A.Y. 2007-08 and cross objection NO.199/Del/2018 is the cross objection of the assessee preferred against the order of the CIT(A).

2. Since the underlying facts in these appeals are identical, therefore, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

3. The grievance in appeal by the revenue relates to the deletion of the penalty levied u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act and the grievance of the assessee in his appeal relates to the levy of penalty u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act.

4. The under lying facts which prompted the levy of penalty u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act relates to the deposit in the HSBC account.

5. Pursuant to an information received by CBDT about the foreign account and income of the assessee for the period relevant to the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08, the assessee came to know about the information and approached the ADIT, Investigation on his own and offered to pay income tax on the alleged deposit in the alleged HSBC Bank account.

6. While making the offer the assessee categorically stated that he is willing to deposit the tax on the condition that such deposit should not be considered as his admission of guilt even before receiving the notice u/s. 148 of the Act the assessee paid taxes on the income offered for taxation which was US $ 40,000 in A.Y.

2006-07 and US $ 32.13 lacs in A.Y.2007-08.

7. Though the assessment was completed for the impugned assessment years by making the respective additions. The AO also levied penalty u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act. In A.Y. 2006-07 the CIT(A) deleted the penalty whereas A.Y.2007-08 he confirmed the levy.

8. Having heard the rival submissions we have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below and have also the benefit of the quantum appeals.

9. This quarrel was also a subject matter before ACMM (Special Acts) Central District. Vide order dated 18.11.2020 in CC No.525792 /16 the Hon’ble Court decided the dispute. The relevant findings of the Hon’ble Court reads under :-

37. Regarding the argument of complainant department that the accused admitted the complainant’s version in the letters/replies/statements recorded, it is important to refer to the said documents.

38. The accused sent a letter Ex. CW-1/6 dated 30/08/2011 to the complainant department mentioning that he has learnt about his name appearing in list of stolen data of HSBC Bank, (Suisse) SA account holders and that such information is being shared with Indian Authorities by French Government. It was further informed in that letter that the accused was NRI / during the year 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 and had opened some accounts which were operated as per the erstwhile FEMA guidelines and to avoid any uncalled for suspici