TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 632X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty cannot be levied u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act in a case where search has taken place after 1.7.2007 and the assessee has declared the additional income in the return filed in response to notice u/s 153A/153C, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT (A) in confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. - SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri A. Srinivas, CA For the Respondent : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR ORDER Per R.K. Panda, Vice-President This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 2.12.2022 of the learned CIT(A)-12, Hyderabad relating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee and his family members. Then the assessee was given an opportunity to produce the evidences for sources of these chit contributions. Since the assessee could not produce any evidence to substantiate the sources of money for the contributions made to the chits, the assessee had agreed to own up the complete liability in his hands and accordingly admitted an additional income of Rs. 55,20,600/- in the hands of the assessee for FY 2015-16 over and above the returned income. The assessment was accordingly completed on a total income of Rs. 70,78,070/-. 5. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee and invoking the provisions of Explanation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eturn after the search has been conducted and such return has been accepted by the Assessing Officer, then merely by virtue of the Act that such return showed a higher income, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot automatically be imposed: i) CIT v. Suraj Bhan (2007) 294 ITR 481 ii) Bhadra Advancing (P) Ltd v. ACIT (2008) 175 Taxmann 551 iii) CIT vs. Suresh Chand Bansal (2010) 329 ITR 330 iv) S.M.J Housing vs. CIT (2013) 357 ITR 698/38 Taxmann.com 203 8.1 He accordingly submitted that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act is leviable. 9. The learned Counsel for the assessee without prejudice to the above submission referring to various decisions submitted that in view of the Explanation 5A to section 271(1) which is a deeming pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of such income. She also relied on a series of decisions to support her case. 11. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and the learned CIT (A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us by both sides. We find the assessee in the instant case in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 70,78,070/- as against the original return of income of Rs. 15,58,070/- filed on 30.05.2016. In the instant case, the assessee on the basis of various entries mentioned in the seized diary admitted additional income of Rs. 55,20,600/- over and above the returned income which was accepted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
