IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH : CHENNAI [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] I.T.A. No.1662/CHNY/2018 Assessment year : 2008-2009. Mrs. Latha Kumari, Vs. Income Tax Officer, No.50, Pillaiyar Koil Street, BW VI(2) Triplicane, Chennai. Chennai 600 005. [PAN AAAPL 7056M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate & Respondent by : Mrs. R. Anitha, IRS, JCIT. Date of Hearing : 03-09-2019 Date of Pronouncement : 09-09-2019 ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This is appeal filed by Assessee directed against order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Chennai ( CIT(A) for short) dated 27.03.2018 for Assessment Year (AY) :- 2 -: ITA No.1662/2018 2008-2009 confirming levy of penalty u/s.271(1) ( c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short Act ). 2. Assessee raised following grounds of appeal: 1. order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, concurring with order of learned Income Tax Officer, BW VI(2) is against facts of case and principles of natural justice. 2. learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 10 failed to appreciate fact that revised return was filed and there was no addition made in assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of Income Tax Act 1961. 3. learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 10 failed to appreciate fact that additional income offered in return filed in response to notice issued u/s 148 of Act was done in good faith and to buy peace with department. 4. learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-l0 also failed to appreciate fact that notice issued by learned Assessing Officer for penalty proceedings was vitiated, as it was of standard proforma without stating fact that if penalty proceedings was for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income. 5. learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10 failed in not appreciating fact that despite appellant not given any opportunity to cross examine deponent, she had offered additional income and paid taxes thereon which was also accepted by learned Assessing Officer only to avoid litigation and to buy peace with department. For these and other grounds that may be adduced during course of hearing, it is hear by prayed that penalty levied may kindly be deleted and thus render justice . :- 3 -: ITA No.1662/2018 3. brief facts of case are as under: appellant is individual deriving income under head income from other sources . return of income for AY 2008-09 was filed on 25.03.2009 disclosing total income of F2,83,990/-. There was no scrutiny assessment proceedings. Subsequently, based on information received from DDIT (Inv.) that assessee had provided cash of F6,23,000/- on 13.03.2008 to one Ms. Leela Surana which were allegedly paid towards purchase of shares and Ms. Leela Surana had accepted transaction of purchase of shares to be bogus. Based on this information, assessment was reopened by issuing notice u/s.148 of Act on 29.02.2012. Against said return of income, assessment was completed by Income Tax Officer, Business Ward VI(2), Chennai vide order dated 15.03.2013 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short Act ) by making addition of F6,32,000/- as unexplained investments. It appears that assessee had agreed to addition in assessment proceedings. addition is made based on concession made by assessee herself. Further, Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings by issuing notice u/s.271 (1) (c) of Act on 15.03.2013. In response to said show cause notice, assessee submitted that she had accepted addition in order to :- 4 -: ITA No.1662/2018 avoid protracted litigation and therefore penalty should not be levied. Assessing Officer rejected above explanation and levied penalty of F1,93,000/- vide order dated 23.09.2013 u/s.271 (1) (c) of Act. 4. Being aggrieved, appeal was preferred before ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order had confirmed levy of penalty. 5. Being aggrieved by order of ld. CIT(A), appellant is in appeal before us in present appeal. 6. We heard rival submissions and perused material on record. only issue involved in present appeal relates to levy of penalty u/s.271 (1) (c) of Act. Penalty was levied in respect of addition made on account of failure to explain source for cash F6,32,000/- given to Smt. Leela Surana. addition appears to have been made u/s.69 of Act and admittedly, addition is based on concession made by assessee herself during course of assessment proceedings. Merely because assessee agreed for addition does not itself leads to conclusion that assessee had conceled particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income and in absence of corroborative evidence establishing malafides on :- 5 -: ITA No.1662/2018 part of assessee, levy of penalty in such circumstances cannot be upheld. In this circumstances, we allow appeal filed by assessee. 7. In result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 9th day of September, 2019, at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (N.R.S. GANESAN) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Chennai . Dated:9th September, 2019. KV & 0 1 2 1 Copy to: 1. Appellant 3. 3 CIT(A) 5. 1 & 7 DR 2. & Respondent 4. 3 /CIT 6. GF Latha Kumari v. Income-tax Officer, BW-VI(2), Chennai