The case ITA 906/DEL/2019 involves an appeal filed by Ms. Sheetal Mehra, New Delhi, against the Income Tax Officer, Ward-40(1), New Delhi. The assessment year in question is 2009-10, and the appeal was filed on February 6, 2019. The final order was pronounced on February 3, 2022.
Ms. Sheetal Mehra filed regular returns of income for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2009-10. The case was reopened under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, and assessments were made treating cash deposits and funds transferred in her account as unexplained investments. The assessment orders were passed under Section 143(3)/147 on March 3, 2014.
Ms. Mehra contended before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] that the cash deposits were from her business dealing in gold ornaments and bullion trading. Alternatively, she argued that only the peak amount of these deposits should be taxed if her explanation was not accepted. The CIT(A) reduced the additions by considering peak credits, thereby treating the deposits as income from undisclosed sources for the three assessment years.
For the assessment year 2007-08, the addition was reduced from Rs. 1.41 crores to Rs. 9,59,158. Similarly, for the assessment year 2008-09, the cash deposit of Rs. 7,43,75,300 was reduced to Rs. 29,97,239, and for the assessment year 2009-10, the cash deposit of Rs. 2,47,06,100 was reduced to Rs. 38,52,454.
The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal, arguing that the assessee’s explanation of trading in bullion and jewellery was not presented before the Assessing Officer (AO) and that the CIT(A) accepted the peak credit without calling for a remand report. The Tribunal accepted the Revenue’s plea, setting aside the assessment orders for fresh adjudication by the AO.
In compliance with the Tribunal’s order, fresh assessments were made by the AO on December 26, 2019. However, before these fresh assessments, the AO had levied penalties under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the additions made in the original assessment orders. The CIT(A) upheld these penalties despite the Tribunal’s order setting aside the original assessments.
Ms. Mehra’s counsel argued that the penalty orders became infructuous since the assessments on which the penalties were based were set aside by the Tribunal. The Revenue also admitted that the penalty orders were no longer valid. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the penalties could not stand since the assessments had been set aside and fresh assessments were pending before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal canceled the penalties imposed for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2009-10, allowing the appeals. It was noted that any penalty proceedings related to the fresh assessments would be a separate matter depending on the outcome of those assessments.
Order Pronounced in Open Court on February 3, 2022, by Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Accountant Member, and Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member.
This case highlights the complexities involved in tax assessments and the importance of providing clear and accurate information during the assessment process. It also underscores the need for the revenue authorities to follow due process and ensure that all relevant facts and explanations are considered before making additions to the assessed income.
The Tribunal’s order in ITA 906/DEL/2019 provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved in the case and the reasons for setting aside the penalties imposed by the AO. The Tribunal carefully examined the facts of the case, the arguments presented by both parties, and the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act before arriving at its decision.
Ms. Sheetal Mehra’s counsel, Shri S.R. Wadhwa, argued that the cash deposits in question were from her business dealings in gold ornaments and bullion trading. He contended that the CIT(A) had rightly accepted the peak credit method to determine the taxable income, as the entire source of funds deposited in the bank account was from her business activities.
He further argued that the penalty orders issued by the AO were infructuous since the assessments on which they were based had been set aside by the Tribunal. Therefore, the penalties could not be sustained.
The Revenue, represented by Senior DR Shri Umesh Takyar, contended that the appellant’s explanation regarding the source of funds was not presented before the AO and that the CIT(A) had accepted the peak credit method without calling for a remand report. The Revenue argued that the matter should be remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Revenue also admitted that the penalty orders had become infructuous due to the Tribunal’s earlier order setting aside the assessments.
The Tribunal considered the arguments of both parties and examined the relevant facts and evidence. The Tribunal noted that the assessments had been set aside for fresh adjudication, and fresh assessment orders had been passed by the AO on December 26, 2019. As a result, the penalty orders based on the original assessments could not be sustained.
The Tribunal held that the penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act were infructuous since the original assessments had been set aside. The Tribunal also noted that any penalty proceedings related to the fresh assessments would be a separate matter, depending on the outcome of those assessments.
Accordingly, the Tribunal canceled the penalties imposed for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2009-10 and allowed the appeals filed by Ms. Sheetal Mehra.
The Tribunal’s order in ITA 906/DEL/2019 has several important implications for taxpayers and revenue authorities:
Overall, the Tribunal’s order provides valuable insights into the complexities involved in tax assessments and the need for both taxpayers and revenue authorities to adhere to the principles of natural justice and fairness.
The case of ITA 906/DEL/2019 involving Ms. Sheetal Mehra highlights the challenges and complexities associated with tax assessments, particularly in cases involving unexplained cash deposits and investments. The Tribunal’s order provides a comprehensive analysis of the issues involved and underscores the importance of due process and fairness in tax assessments.
The cancellation of the penalties imposed by the AO is a significant relief for Ms. Mehra and sets a precedent for similar cases where assessments have been set aside for fresh adjudication. The case also emphasizes the need for taxpayers to provide clear and accurate information during the assessment process to avoid unnecessary additions to their assessed income.
As the fresh assessments are pending before the CIT(A), the outcome of these assessments will determine any further penalty proceedings related to the case. The Tribunal’s order serves as a reminder of the importance of following due process and ensuring that all relevant facts and explanations are considered before making additions to the assessed income.
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.
Research Platform