TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 537X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which needs to be examined and disposed off before the levy of penalty is confirmed. We accordingly set-aside the matter to the file of the ld CIT(A) to examine the various contentions so raised by the assessee and decide the matter afresh after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to appear before the ld. CIT(A) and file the necessary information and documentation in support of its contentions, as so advised and ensure in timely completion of the appellate proceedings. This will not prejudice the right of the assessee in availing of the aforesaid settlement scheme and where the assessee so decides finally to opt for the scheme and has taken necessary steps as so specified therein, it can bring ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter any further and it was accordingly decided to hear the ld. DR and decided the matter based on material available on record. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was passed on 20.03.2015 wherein the Assessing Officer has levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to ₹ 12,94,565/- and the relevant findings of the Assessing Officer read as under:- As per brief facts of the case, a survey u/s 133A was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 05.03.1999 and during the course of survey proceedings a diary named Geeta Dayanandini , 1998 addition (pertaining to period 1.1.1998 to 31.12.1998) was found and impounded. As such diary was belongs to firms and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der, the Assessing Officer has passed the appeal effect order dated 19.09.2016 wherein the assessed income has been determined at ₹ 17,38,847/- as against assessed income of ₹ 36,98,757/- considered by the Assessing Officer while levying the penalty. It was further submitted that the Assessing Officer s satisfaction as warranted u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for initiating the penalty proceedings has not been recorded in the assessment order and unless requisite satisfaction is recorded, the jurisdiction to initiate the penalty proceedings cannot be exercised. Regarding peak cash credit of ₹ 19.60 lakhs, it was submitted that the same has been voluntarily surrendered by the assessee, however, the Assessing Officer has not broug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iving the appeal effect, the addition on account of unexplained cash creditors u/s 68 of the Act for an amount of ₹ 16,60,000/- and unrecorded investment in purchases amounting to ₹ 20,90,604/- were sustained. 6. That the AO had levied penalty of ₹ 12,94,565/- on the above mentioned additions sustained by the appellate authority. 7. That the present appeal is directed against the levy of the penalty amounting to ₹ 12,94,565/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4.3.2 I have considered the above mentioned facts. There is no doubt that during the course of survey operation u/s 132A of the Act, documents have been found showing unrecorded loan transactions. The peak value of such transaction is ₹ 19,60,000/-. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Where the assessee has carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal in the quantum proceedings and the quantum additions as so claimed by the assessee have been reduced and which forms the basis for levy of penalty, the consequent quantum of penalty will also undergo a change, however, we find that there is no finding recorded by the ld CIT(A) in this regard. Similarly, the assessee has raised contentions regarding lack of satisfaction for initiating the penalty proceedings while completing the assessment proceedings, to our mind, there are relevant considerations which needs to be examined and disposed off before the levy of penalty is confirmed. We accordingly set-aside the matter to the file of the ld CIT(A) to examine the various c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
