2014 (1) TMI 1138

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nly difference is in the figures of the amount of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act involved in all these appeals, otherwise, facts are identical. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the grounds raised in I.T.A. No. 511/Jodh/2013 are reproduced as under:- "1. Deleting the penalty of Rs. 6,55,701/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act by holding that the Hon'ble ITAT vide order dated 15/07/2010 has deleted the quantum additions and thus there is no basis for penalty despite the fact that the penalty has been levied not only on the quantum additions but also on undisclosed income of Rs. 2,28,641/- declared by the assessee on account of undisclosed sales/turnover detected during the course of search and thereby immunity by way of explana....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e additions on quantum, as such, the basis on which, the penalties were levied, is not in existence. Accordingly, the penalties levied by the Assessing Officer were deleted. Reliance was placed on the following case laws:- i CIT Vs Roy Durlabh Ji (1995) 211 ITR (Raj.) 470. ii Sukhdev Charity Estate Vs. CIT (1987) 63 CTR (Raj.) 78. iii M/s KC Builders & Anothers Vs. ACIT (2004) 265 ITR 562 (SC) Now the department is in appeal 4. Learned D.R. although supported the order of the Assessing Officer, but could not controvert the findings given by the Ld. CIT(A). 5. In his rival submissions, the learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and further submitted that the additions on the basis ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The addition erroneously sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is, thus, directed to be deleted. 34. In the overall conspectus of the case and the findings as aforesaid on the issue under dispute coupled with the fact that additions u/s 153A of the Act cannot be made in a case like this, we find no justification in making any addition on account of estimated profit on the sales, unexplained investment and unexplained debtors in the years under appeal. As a result, appeals of the assessee stand allowed and that of the Revenue stand dismissed." 7. From the above facts, it is abundantly clear that the additions made by the Assessing Officer are not in existence, therefore, the penalties were not leviable u/s 271(1)(c)of the Act. In this regard, the ....