IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील स.ं /ITA No.541/SRT/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12 (Hybrid hearing)

Late Chetanbhai Mehanbhai Income-tax Officer, Ward-1, Shah बनाम/ Navsari, Room No. 208, 2^nd Floor, L/h Kavitaben Chetanbhai Vs. Income Tax Office, Charpool, Shah, 205, Pallavi Apartment Awabaug, Navsari - 396445 RichandRoad, Navsari-396

445 èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AHTPS 1907 Q (अपीलाथ५/Appellant) (ঋ(cid:529)थ५ /Respondent) िनधा१ौरती की ओर से /Appellant by Shri Tarit Vepari, AR राज(cid:738) की ओर से /Respondent by Shri Abhishek Gautam, Sr-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing 25/09/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement 11/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM:

This appeal by the assessee emanates from the order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 07.03.2025 by the National Faceless Appeal, Centre (NFAC), Delhi /Commissioner of Income- tax(Appeals) [in short ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AY) 2011-12, in confirming penalty levied by Assessing Officer u/s 271B of the Act dated

12.12.2017.

2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the penalty u/s. 271B of Rs.83,823.

2. The penalty u/s 271B cannot sustain when the penalty is levied on the quantum which is added u/s 68 of the Act that is by holding the quantum as the appellant’s own money.

3. The above grounds are prejudiced to one another.

4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or vary any of the grounds of appeal.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed its return of income for the AY 2011-12. As per the information available with the department, it was noticed by the AO that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.22,02,000/- during the FY 2010-11 relevant to AY 2011-12. Therefore, the case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act and the notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued on 21.03.2017. In response, the assessee did not file his return of income. Subsequently, notices u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee calling for explanation and documents on the relevant issue. However, no compliance was made thereto. Therefore, show cause notice was issued to the assessee, in response to which, assessee furnished her reply. However, the same was not found to be satisfactory, therefore, the AO treated the cash deposits of Rs.34,22,000/- and credit entries of Rs.1,33,42,600/- made in the savings bank account of the assessee as unexplained money and added the same to the total income of the assessee. Accordingly, order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act was passed by the AO on 12/12/2017, determining total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,67,64,600/-. Further, the AO observed that the turnover of the assessee in sub contract work exceeded Rs.1 Crore and the assessee neither filed the return of income nor got his accounts audited as per provision of Section 44AB of the Act, therefore, penalty u/s 271B of the Act was initiated. Subsequently, show cause notices were issued to the assessee, wherein she was show caused as to why penalty u/s 271B of the Act should not be initiated in her case However, assessee did not furnish any reply/explanation in their response Subsequently, the AO levied penalty of Rs. 83,823/- u/s.271B of the Act vide his penalty order dated 25.06.2018.

4. Aggrieved by the penalty order of the AO, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). During appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) observed that although the assessee submitted that the assessee did not receive the notices or penalty order, however, she as had not made any effort to bring out anything on record with respect to the reasons as to why her books of account were not audited as mandated u/s. 44AB of the Act. Accordingly, the CIT(A) upheld the penalty levied by the AO and dismissed the appeal of t