ORDER
1. The revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 26-7-2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 24 (Delhi)/2001. The impugned order has been passed in respect of the block period 1-4-1986 to 31-3-1997.
2. It appears that the assessed had received an amount of R. 3 lakhs in cash from M/s. D.S. Imports. According to the assessing officer, the amount represented undisclosed income in the hands of the assessed while according to the assessed it was a deposit made by M/s. D.S. Imports.
3. Notwithstanding the fact that the revenue was of the view that the amount was undisclosed income, penalty proceedings were initiated against the assessed for the violation of provisions of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, which provides that loans or deposits in excess of Rs. 20,000 should not be received in cash.
4. The assessed approached the Commissioner (Appeals) who passed an order on 6-10-2000 in which it was accorded that the assessed had received a deposit of Rs. 3 lakhs in cash in contravention of section 269SS of the Act and penalty under section 27 1 D of the Act was imposable against the assessed.
Feeling aggrieved, the assessed filed an appeal out of which the impugned order dated 26-7-2004 has arisen.
5. Insofar as the quantum issue is concerned, the Commissioner (Appeals) in a separate order dated 6-9-2000 came to the conclusion (in paragraph 7.2 of the said order) that the addition under section 158BC of the Act could not be sustained and that the assessing officer could at best have taken action under section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 3 lakhs was deleted without prejudice to the action that the assessing officer may take for taxing this amount in regular assessment proceedings including proceedings under section 147 of the Act.
6. Against the order dated 6-9-2000, the revenue preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. By an order dated 6-10-2004, the Tribunal (in paragraph 9 of the said order) upheld the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order dated 6-9-2000. The Tribunal held that the receipt was outside the scope of undisclosed income defined under section 158B(b) of the Act.
7. On these facts, we are of the view that the revenue could not on the one hand, contend that the amount of Rs. 3 lakhs is undisclosed income in the hands of the assessed and at the same time seek to initiate proceedings against the assessed for violation of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act which deals with cash deposits or loans in excess of Rs. 20,000.
8. The revenue, having taken the stand that the income was undisclosed income in the hands of the assessed, it could not resort to proceedings under section 269SS read with section 271D of the Act, as held by the Tribunal.
9. Additionally, we agree with learned counsel for the assessed that since a block assessment could not be sustained, penal action may be permissible (if at all) only after a regular assessment is made.
10. Under these circumstances, in our opinion, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal.
11. Dismissed.