9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r (A.Y.)2008-09. Since the facts are identical, these appeals are clubbed, heard together and a common order is being passed for the sake of convenience as under. The facts are extracted from the case of T.Saimatha in I.T.A.No.318/Viz/2017. 2. In the instant case, search u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, (in short 'Act') was conducted in the case of M/s Sai Ram Parlour on 30.01.2008 and simultaneous searches were conducted in the residential premises of the assessees also. During the course of search u/s 132 of the Act, certain incriminating material was found and seized marked as SRP/1 to 47 and the Assessing Officer (AO) made the addition of Rs. 1,58,59,811/- as undisclosed profit and initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2.1. Simil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that all the facts and the information is available before the Ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate the additional ground. No fresh facts or enquiries are necessary to adjudicate the additional ground, therefore, requested to admit the additional ground. 4. On the other hand, the Ld.DR objected for admission of additional ground stating that at this stage, the admission of additional ground is not maintainable. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. In the instant case, the assessee has already raised the additional ground before the CIT(A), therefore, no fresh ground is raised by the assessee. Since the ground raised by the assessee is a legal issue and all the material stated to have been available in the infor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty u/s 271AAA on the same addition and argued that two parallel proceedings cannot be conducted against the assessee for the same issue and for the same assessment year. Accordingly, the Ld.AR argued that the levy of penalty u/s 271AAA is bad in law, hence requested to set aside the order of the lower authorities and allow the appeals of the assessees. The Ld.AR relied on the decision of ITAT, Pune Bench in the case of DM Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ACIT in I.T.A.No.110/Pun/2016 dated 06.09.2018 for the A.Y.2012-13, wherein the Coordinate Bench held that having initiated penalty proceedings in the manner of levying of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for concealing the income, levy of penalty u/s 271AAA for undisclosed income is unsustainable. Similar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 31.12.2009. In the assessment, the AO made one addition of undisclosed profit for an amount of Rs. 1,58,59,811/- and initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Subsequently, the AO issued show cause notice calling for the explanation of the assessee as to why the penalty should not be imposed u/s 271AAA of the Act vide show cause notice dated 19.10.2012 after the receipt of second appeal order. For both the notices the assessee submitted her reply. In the instant case, the AO made the addition representing the undisclosed profits and no other addition was made. No other undisclosed income was also admitted by the assessee as observed from the assessment order. Therefore, it is evident that the AO had initiated the penalty duly applying hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
