TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , etc. We have already adjudicated similar issue in the case of Mrs. Vasundhara Shailesh Joshi (2018 (3) TMI 1583 - ITAT PUNE) wherein also the assessment was completed under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. While deciding the issue of levy of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the Tribunal vide paras 16 to 19 held that the provisions of Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act were clearly attracted and the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been upheld. - Decided against assessee. - ITA Nos.107 & 108/PUN/2016, ITA Nos.91, 92, 93, 94, 97, 101, 103, 104 98 & 92/PUN/2016 - - - Dated:- 28-3-2018 - MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM Appellant by : S/Shri Nikhil Pathak / ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ating to assessment year 2009-10 has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty of ₹ 5,83,779/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the additional income declared by the assessee was based on estimates and there was no concrete evidence found during the course of search that the assessee had generated the undisclosed income declared during the course of search and hence, the levy of penalty on the additional income declared by the assessee was not justified at all. 3. The ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the additional income was declared by the assessee in order to co-operate and buy peace with the dept. and therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shailesh Mahadev Joshi, against whom search and seizure operations were carried out under section 132 of the Act. The residences of assessee and his wife Mrs. Vasundhara Shailesh Joshi were searched and incriminating documents were found. The assessee was the sole proprietor of certain concerns and was partner in other partnership firms along with his wife. The income which has been assessed in the hands of assessee is vide order passed under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. The additional income offered by the assessee during the course of search was offered to taxation and was assessed in the hands of assessee, on which the Assessing Officer held the assessee liable to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. Simil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are thus, dismissed. 11. The facts and issues in ITA No.108/PUN/2016 are similar to the facts and issues in ITA No.107/PUN/2016 and our decision in ITA No.107/PUN/2016 shall apply mutatis mutandis to ITA No.108/PUN/2016. 12. Now, coming to the balance appeals in the bunch, wherein the appeals have been filed by different partnership firms for different assessment years. The individual assessee have raised additional grounds of appeal in each of the appeals which read as under:- 1] The assessee submits that the learned A.O. had no jurisdiction to issue notice u/s. 148 to the assessee and accordingly, the assessment order passed u/s. 147 was invalid in law and therefore, the penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
