9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 988X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The facts of the case in brief as appearing from the penalty order are that during the course of search, it was found that the appellant and his family members have certain undisclosed income. In his statement, the appellant stated that considering the issues emanating from the seized material and time factor involved, a sum of Rs. 266.92 lakhs was offered for the A.Ys. 2003-04 to 2007-08. The said income comprised of deposits and interest thereon kept in Kranthi Cooperative Bank. A sum of Rs. 3,27,941 for A.Y. 2003-04, Rs. 9,40,OOO for A.Y. 2004-05, Rs.I0,39,015 for A.Y. 2005-06 and Rs. 1,00,000 for A.Y. 2006-07 was offered as income from undisclosed sources. The income has been detected consequent to the search and the appellant has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act. As all the proceedings pending prior to the date of search get abated the moment search was conducted, the earlier returns of income cannot be considered for the purpose of arriving at the concealment. In so far as the returns of income filed in response to notice u/s.153A is concerned, the same was accepted and therefore, there is no concealment of income. 3.2. Without prejudice to the above, the assessee submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) that he accepted for admission of additional income during the course of search and seizure operations itself. Such amount was admitted in the returns of income filed in response to notice u/s.153A of the Act. The penalty proceedings were initiated during the assessment proceedings u/s.153A of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... years under consideration that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5. The learned D.R. on the other hand has relied on the orders of Ld. CIT(A) and A.O. 6. We have heard both the parties and also perused the relevant material on record. We find that the solitary issue in the present appeals is squarely covered by the order of the Coordinate Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Mr. Kiran Shah vs. ACIT, Central 15 & 16, Mumbai in ITA.No.5919 to 5925/Mum/2011 dated 08.01.2014 wherein the Tribunal while allowing the appeals of the assessee held as under : "13. .... It would be pertinent to refer to the decision of the Delhi Bench in the case of Prem Arora vs. DCIT (supra) w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 271 (1)(c). It follows that the concealment of income has to be seen with reference to additional income brought to tax over and above income returned by the assessee in response to notice issued u/s. I53A. Accordingly, for the purpose of imposition of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) resulting as a result of search assessments made u/s. 153A, the original return of income filed u/s. 139 cannot be considered. Further, in case of search initiated after 1.6.2003 a return of income is always filed on issue of notice u/s. 153A. As held above the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is impossible when there is variation in assessed and return income. if there is no variation, there will be no concealment. When there is no concealment, question of levy of penalty u/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
