TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 407X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ]. - Decided in favour of assessee - I.T.A. No. 3861 to 3864/Mum/2015, I.T.A. No. 3856 TO 3860/Mum/2015 - - - Dated:- 6-4-2017 - SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM For The Appellant : Shri Dilip V.Lakhani, Ld. AR For The Respondent : Shri K.Ravikiran, Ld. DR ORDER Per BENCH 1. The captioned appeals by two assessee assails separate orders of Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income tax (OSD) [h/c CIT(Appeals)-51] [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A) ] qua confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for several Assessment Years [AY]. Since, the issue springs out from common set of facts, we dispose-off all the appeals by way of this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. First, we take up ITA NO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome by invoking Explanation 5A of Section 271(1)(c). The same was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 04/03/2015 by noting the express provisions of Explanation 5A, against which the assessee is in appeal before us. 3. The Ld. Counsel for assessee [AR], Shri D.V.Lakhani, first of all, placing reliance on judgment of Hon ble Delhi High Court in PCIT Vs. Shri Neeraj Jindal [ITA NO. 463/2016 CM NO. 26604/2016 dated 09/02/2017], contended that the returned income u/s 153A has been accepted as such without any further additions by the revenue and therefore, penalty could not be levied. Further, the difference in the two incomes arose only due to certain interest on Bank deposits whereas all the accounts held by the assessee were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is concerned, we fully agree with the contentions of the Ld. DR that the language of Explanation 5A makes it amply clear that whenever additional income is declared in a return of income filed after the date of search, the assessee is deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars within the meaning of Section 271(1)(c). The cited judgment of Hon ble Delhi High Court was rendered in the context of Explanation 5 and hence, the same do not apply to the case of the assessee. However, we have also note that the penalty has been initiated on one limb but finally imposed for another limb. Further, the show-cause notice u/s 274 read with section 271 issued to the assessee did not specify the limb fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee, namely, Smt.Nisha Anil Surekha, was also subjected to assessments u/s 153A read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 from AYs 2006-07 to 2010-11. The assessee filed return of income for various AYs for the first time pursuant to notice u/s 153A which was accepted as such without any further additions by the revenue. Consequently, she is saddled with penalty for all the years as per following details, which has been contested before us: No. Assessment Year Penalty 1. 2006-2007 81,442/- 2. 2007-2008 1,25,586/- 3. 2008-2009 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
