9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grounds which read as under:- 10. "That the notice issued and the penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdictional as search has taken place after 01.06.2007 and as per provision of section 271AAA sub-section 3 no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed in respect of the alleged undisclosed income. 11. That the notice issued under section 271(1)(c)/274 of the Act, and the order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 12. That no satisfaction has been recorded while completing the assessment proceedings, hence the notice issued under section 274 of the Act, and the order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act are illegal, bad in law and without jur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irrelevant portion not applicable to the assessee, there is no merit in the penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The same is held to be bad and invalid in law. Accordingly, we delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since we have adjudicated the issue on preliminary ground, we do not adjudicate the issue on merit. ITA No.840/Del/2014 Assessment Years 2009-10 7. The issue raised is against the levy of penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act. 8. Briefly in the facts of the case the assessee had originally furnished return of income declaring total income of Rs. 45,66,220/-. Search u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on 10.02.2009 in Dawat group of cases including the assessee. Thereafter, the assessment was completed at total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he offered the additional income of Rs. 13,02,500/-. The assessee took shelter of sub-section (2) of section 271AAA of the Act and pointed out that no penalty was leviable. The Assessing Officer noted that the Dawat group to which the assessee belonged, had offered only part of the additional income originally offered, hence, the assessee was held to be in default and penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act was levied at Rs. 1,83,357/-. 9. Before the CIT(A), the plea was that the additional income was offered while search procedure was going on, where the search started on 17.02.2009 and was completed on 27.03.2009. The CIT(A) however, upheld the order of the Assessing Officer confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act at Rs. 1,83,357/-. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etters dated 21.01.2010 and 28.12.2010 in continuation and in reference to letter dated 17.03.2009 declaring the exact income belonging to him based on the seized documents. According to the assessee he modified the surrender made in respect of income belonging to him based on the seized documents. There is no dispute about the fact that the Assessing Officer assessed the same income as declared or surrendered by the assessee. The AO has not assessed the income of Rs. 17 crores but has assessed the income at the same amount declared or surrendered by the assessee on the basis of the seized documents. 12. It is not the case of the revenue that the income belonging to the assessee was more than what is surrendered by him. The assessee has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
