TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 664X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) by following the decision in the case of Kirit Dayabhai Patel. We find that the decision in the case of Kirit Dayabhai Patel was challenged by the assessee and the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court vide order dated 03-12-2014 [2015 (1) TMI 201 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]has reversed the order of Hon’ble Tribunal. Revenue has not brought any binding contrary decision in its support. We therefore respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kirit Dayabhai Patel [2015 (1) TMI 201 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], hold that no penalty is leviable in the present case and thus direct its deletion. - Decided in favour of assessee. - IT(SS)A No. 760/Ahd/2010 - - - Dated:- 30-1-2015 - Shri Mukul Kr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xemption under Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and accordingly upheld the penalty levied by AO. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of Ld. CIT(A), Assessee is now in appeal before us and has raised the following ground:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the penalty of ₹ 1,64,710/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act as levied by the AO, which needs to be deleted in the interest of natural justice and equity. 5. Before us, Ld. AR submitted that additional income of ₹ 5,01,000/- admitted during search was offered by the assessee in the return filed by the assessee and the same was accepted by the AO and no addition was made to the returned i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eizure operation and the aforesaid penalty was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) by following the decision in the case of Kirit Dayabhai Patel (supra). We find that the decision in the case of Kirit Dayabhai Patel (supra) was challenged by the assessee and the Hon ble Gujarat High Court vide order dated 03-12-2014 in Tax Appeal Nos. 1181-1185 of 2010 has reversed the order of Hon ble Tribunal by holding as under:- 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the decisions relied upon by learned senior advocate for the appellant, we are of the considered opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal is erroneous. The CIT(A) rightly held that it is not relevant whether any return of income was filed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d down in the case of assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gebilal Kanhailal (supra) and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Abdul Rashid (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the penalty under Section 271(1) (C) of the income Tax Act cannot be levied on the income shown in the return filed under Section 153 of the I.T. Act. 7. Before us, Revenue has not brought any binding contrary decision in its support. We therefore respectfully following the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kirit Dayabhai Patel, hold that no penalty is leviable in the present case and thus direct its deletion. 8. In the result, the appeal of Assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on the date mentioned hereinabove at c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
