IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT &

SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 6098/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2014-15)

Shr i Vineet Thakar, v/s. Income Tax Officer(41)(4)(4)

22/201, Seawoods Estate बनाम Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai –

Sector 54-56, Nerul, Navi 400051, Maharashtra Mumbai 400 706, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAGPT2617J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

Appellant by : Shri Devendra Jain,AR Respondent by : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. DR)

Date of Hearing 19.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 28.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :-

The present appeal emanating from the appellate order dated

24.09.2024 is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated26.09.2022for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2014-15.

2. The grounds of appeal are as under:-

1. The Ld. CIT (A) has completed the appellate proceedings without considering the facts and circumstances of the case, which is contrary to the law and is also against the principles of natural justice.

2. Imposition of penalty to the extent of Rs. 6,53,800/-

a. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c), assuming that appellant has concealed income which is contrary to the fact; given that the Appellant has always been regular in filing his ITR in time year-after-year, but could not file the same for the AY in question in view of his extensive travel in relation to his employment and also on account of bonafide belief that since TDS was duly deducted from all his incomes (Salary and Bank interest), there is no tax default on his part.

b. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in fact and in law by charging a penalty of Rs. 6,53,800 u/s 271(1)(c) without appreciating that the alleged concealed income (if any), in respect of bank interest being Rs. 2,08,451 only, the penalty chargeable (if any) should have been restricted to Rs. 2,08,451 only and not Rs. 6,53,800 which figure is inclusive of interest of Rs. 4,45,349 u/s 234A, 234B and 234C.

3. Ground no.1 is general and does not require any adjudication. Moreover, the ld.CIT(A) has accorded adequate opportunity of hearing and even reduced the quantum of penalty substantially. Therefore, the assessee should not have grievance any further.

4. As far as the ground no.2(a) and (b) are concerned, the brief facts of the case are that that the assessee is an Individual who did not file return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 voluntarily although as per the database with the Department in ITS, he had received salary to the tune of Rs.65,37,780/-, interest of Rs.9,97,380/- and was also having Time deposit with HDFC Bank Limited amounting to Rs.59,87,858/. Therefore, the case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act. Assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act was completed on 27.03.2022 determining total income at Rs.135,23,021/- comprising of salary of Rs.65,37,783/-, interest of Rs.9,97,380/- and Time Deposit of Rs.59,87,858/-, which was treated as unexplained money u/s. 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for concealment of income. During this proceeding, in response to show cause notices for imposing penalty issued on various dates, the assessee did not make any compliance. Therefore, the AO in ex parte order concluded that the assessee had committed a default within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) without any reasonable cause and rendered himself liable to such penalty. He worked the minimum penalty leviable u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act at Rs.44,03,865/- being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. Hence, the AO imposed upon penalty of Rs. 44,03,865/- on the assessee.

4. The assessee filed subsequent appeal before the first appellate authority who inter alia observed that the AO l