9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 09-10 & 2010-11 against penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 2. This bunch of appeals of related assessee on similar issue were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. The issue raised in all the appeals is against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the issue raised in the bunch of appeals stands covered by the order of Tribunal in related persons in ITA Nos.95 & 96/PUN/2016 in the case of Mrs. Vasundhara Shailesh Joshi Vs. DCIT, ITA Nos.105 & 106/PUN/2016 in the case of Joshi Wadewala Hadapsar Vs. DCIT, ITA Nos.99 & 100/PUN/2016 in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence, probabilities, and fact and circumstances in the appellant case. 5 The order of penalty is bad in law for the reason that the notice for initiation of penalty as to whether it is concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income is discernable from the notice issued and consequently the order of penalty passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on invalid notice does not have any legs to stand and penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act deserves to be deleted under the facts and circumstance of the case. 6. The Id CIT (Appeals) was not justified in ignoring the action of Assessing officer who in assessment order has stated that assessee has conceals the particulars of income however notice were issued for conceal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of search at his residence. The first set of documents relate to unaccounted sales of Wada Pav and others at different outlets. Another set of documents which were found on account of undisclosed investments in jewellery, deposits with Pat Sansthas, fixed deposits, etc. 9. We have already adjudicated similar issue in the case of Mrs. Vasundhara Shailesh Joshi (supra), 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 uph ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice u/s. 153C for assessing the undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee firm as against notice u/s. 148 issued by him and therefore, the assessment order passed u/s. 147 is bad in law and accordingly, the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) on the basis of an invalid assessment order was null and void." 13. The Tribunal in earlier order had also decided the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the case of partnership firms with lead order in 105 & 106/PUN/2016 in the case of Joshi Wadewala Hadapsar Vs. DCIT (supra). The penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been deleted after adjudicating the issue in paras 20 to 36 of the order dated 27.03.2018. We are referring to the said decision but the same is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
