TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 505X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I 14 - RAJASTHAN High Court] followed - Penalty proceedings and quantum proceedings are separate and distinct and the parameters which are applicable to the assessment proceedings may not apply to penalty proceedings – thus, no penalty is imposable in the case – thus, the penalty imposed is set aside –Decided in favour of Assessee. - ITA No. 547, 33 & 34/JU/2013 - - - Dated:- 12-3-2014 - Shri Hari Om Maratha And Shri N. K. Saini,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri U.C. Jain Shri Gautam Chand Baid For the Respondent : Shri Deepak Sehgal, DR ORDER Per Hari Om Maratha, J.M. All the above three captioned appeals, pertaining to the same assessee, were heard together. So, for the sake of convenience and brevity, we proceed to decide them by a common order. ITA No. 547/JU/2013 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that consequent upon a search conducted in the case of Singhvi Group between 25.3.2008 to 27.03.2008, notice u/s 153A was issued to the assessee on 12.09.2008. The assessee disclosed by filing Return of Income [ROI] on11.02.2009 income of Rs. 2,90,93,278/- in response to this notice. Assessment was completed u/s 153A/144 of the Act on 29.12.2009 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 19,81,311/- on account of dummy client trading indulged by the assessee and has deleted the addition made on account of unexamined and undeclared cash of Rs. 14,94,697. The A.O. has restricted himself and has imposed penalty u/s 271AAA on the income surrendered Rs. 1,55,94,639/-. The A.O. has estimated the concealed income on account of failure to furnish confirmation of accounts for A.Ys. 2006-07 to 2008-09 as under: a. A.Y. 2006-07 Rs. 26,69,808/- b. A.Y. 2007-08 Rs. 49,90,653/- c A.Y. 2008-09 Rs. 19,81,311/- Against the above estimated income of Rs. 59,79,150/- for A.Y. 2008-09, the assessee has disclosed income in the form of assets, having been earned in the preceding year at Rs. 15,94,639/- and has paid tax a per modified statement recorded u/s 132(4) r.w.s Explanation (5) to section 271(1)(c)/sub-section (2) of section 271AAA of the Act. After considering the facts of this case, we have found that when the assessee has disclosed the assets as having been earned in the year of search, though related to earlier years, no penalty is exigible in view of Explanation (5) to section 271(1)(c) of the Act has fulfilled all the three conditions laid down therein. It is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t proceedings may not apply to penalty proceedings. Therefore, in our considered opinion, no penalty is imposable in this case and therefore, we order to delete the entire penalty. ITA Nos. 33 34/JU/2013 A.Ys. 2006-07 2007-08 5. In A.Ys. 2006-07 and 2007-08, the following grounds have been raised by the appellant respectively: A.Y. 2006-07 1] That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty imposed by the AO and further enhancing the same is bad in law, bad in facts, perverse and contrary to the material on record. 2] That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the imposition of penalty and further enhancing the same, particularly when the validity of assessment order itself was challenged in the penalty proceeding as well as before the Ld. CIT(A). 3] Without prejudice to above and in the alternative: a) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the penalty on the addition of Rs. 29,68,808/- confirmed by the Hon'ble ITAT by invoking the Explanation 5A to section 271, without appreciating that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred in sustaining the penalty on the addition of Rs. 49,90,799/- confirmed by the Hon'ble ITAT by invoking the Explanation 5A to section 271, without appreciating that the Explanation 5A to section 271 is attracted only with reference to income / asset declared by the assessee in the return of income after search and not for the additions made to the returned income. b)That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting the submission that the assessee declared income on the basis of investment in the AY 2008-09 accrued to the date of search and declared the same in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) read with section 271AAA and paid the tax on such income and as such the assessment of income on accrual basis in each year cannot be a ground for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). c) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in enhancing the penalty on the income surrendered at Rs. 16,84,860/- in the return filed u/s 153A. 4] That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 49,90,799/- made by the AO and the additional income of Rs. 16,84,860/- surrendered in the return fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
