9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 1199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ether and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The common ground in all these appeals is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the levy of penalty by the Assessing Officer made u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The common facts in all these appeals are that a search was conducted u/s. 132 in the case of Shikhir Vir Agarwal and his group of companies including the assessee under consideration on 03/03/2008. During the course of search operations and in the statement made u/s.132(4) of the Act, assessee offered total additional undisclosed income of Rs. 9 crores in the entire group. Out of Rs. 9 crores declaration made on 03/03/2008, income of Rs. 4,61,00,000/- was offered in the A.Y. 2008-09 in group concer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and accordingly, proceeded by levying the penalty. 4. Aggrieved by this, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld.CIT(A). It was strongly contended that satisfaction of the Assessing Officer in the order of the assessment is a prerequisite condition for invoking the penalty proceedings. The Assessing Officer has not recorded his satisfaction. Therefore, in the absence of any proper reason being recorded by the Assessing Officer, order of penalty lacks application of mind. Relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ms. Madhushree Gupta vs. Union of India & anr.(317 ITR 107), it was strongly contended that failing to record satisfaction in itself would make the levy of p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice u/s. 148 was served on him, he filed revised returns showing higher income. Eventually assessment orders were passed. Ii penalty proceedings under section 271, the assessee claimed that he had offered additional income to buy peace of mind and avoid litigation. Penalty orders were passed and the commissioner (A) confirmed the orders. But the Appellate Tribunal held that the Department had not discharged its burden of proving of concealment and had simply rested its conclusion on the Act of Voluntary surrender done by the assessee in good faith, and that penalty could not be levied. On a reference, the High Court held that no penalty could be levied for concealment. The Department preferred appeal to the Supreme Court. The Hon'ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
