TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 1108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present case. CIT(A) as considered the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. [ 2013 (11) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT] wherein as observed that the AO has to satisfy whether the penalty proceedings be initiated or not during the course of the assessment proceedings and the AO is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing. The scope of section 271(1)(c) has also been elaborately discussed by this Court in Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors [ 2008 (9) TMI 52 - SUPREME COURT] and CIT vs. Atul Mohan Bindal [ 2009 (8) TMI 44 - SUPREME COURT] Thus, this contention of the appellant is not accepted. Also in case of Sunita Transport Pvt. Ltd. [ 2012 (12) TMI 981 - HIG ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eon. 3. Aggrieved against the addition, the assessee filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). After verification of the details of seized material, the ld. CIT(A) determined the income of the assessee as 29,38,384/-. It is therefore the Assessing Officer proceeded with the penalty proceedings and issued show cause notice, why not to levy penalty for concealment of commission income of Rs. 29,38,384/-. The assessee failed to reply to the show cause notice, thereby the Assessing Officer levied minimum penalty of Rs. 9,23,914/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the levy of penalty by relying upon the Supreme Court and Jurisdictional High C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2006) 280 ITR 0487 (ii) CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. (1996) 86 taxman 0030 (iii) CIT vs. S.P. Bhatt (1974) 97 ITR 0440 (iv) CIT vs. Vijay Kumar Jain (2010) 325 ITR 0378 (v) Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 0085 (vi) CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. (2008) 303 ITR 0053 (vii) CIT vs. Sankarsons Company (1972) 85 ITR 0627 (viii) ITA No. 5895/Mum/2010 Shri Narayansingh J. Deora vs. ACIT order dated 09-12-2011 (ix) DCIT vs. Madad Ali Ansari Co. (2000) 69 TTJ 0279 Thus ld. counsel for the assessee pleaded that the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is liable to be deleted. 6. Per contra the ld. Sr. D.R., Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, appearing for the Revenue supported the order passed by lower authorities. The l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... set off against brought forward business loss, thus claiming nil income. The Assessing Officer completed assessment u/s. 143 r.w.s. 153A determining the total income as Rs. 54,38,284/- on account of unexplained money u/s. 69 based on seized materials. On further appeal, the CIT(A) determined the income of the assessee as Rs. 29,38,284/- and there is no estimation of income made by the ld. CIT(A). The relevant portion of the CIT(A) s order reads as follows:- The facts of the case have been considered with reference to the served document. It is fact that the AO has considered total transaction value as income of the appellant in some case, where, in some cases, commission income only was considered. Similarly, the appellant in the cal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Page No. 6 of A/1 25,00,000 Covered by above addition, it is receipt out of above. Total Income 29,38,384/- 7.1 Thus, in our considered opinion, the addition of Rs. 29,38,384/- is sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is based on seized materials, during the course of search. There is no estimation of income by the ld. CIT(A). Thus, case laws relied upon by the ld. counsel for the assessee are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Further, the ld. CIT(A) has considered the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 358 ITR 593 as follows: It was observed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of Bharatkumar G. Rajani Vs. DCIT (2013) 40 taxman.com 344 wherein it is held as follows: After assessment of assessee had been completed, Investigation Wing detected money laundering racket, in which assessee was also found involved - In response to notice under section 148 assessee filed return of income declaring bogus loan of Rs. 10 lakh and interest thereon as additional income - Assessing Officer completed reassessment and also levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) on assessee - Whether on facts, concealment of income came to be established and penalty under section 271(1)(c) was rightly levied upon assessee - Held, yes [Para 3] [In favour of revenue] 8. Thus the finding arrived by the CIT(A) following Jurisdictional Hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
