2015 (12) TMI 286

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by Shri Vijay Mehta, ld. counsel for the assessee, is that the penalty was levied on two issues, for which our attention was invited to page 2 para 7 of the assessment order alongwith para 9 of the penalty order by contending that the money belonged to partnership firm, by further inviting our attention to pages, 1, 11, 60 of the paper book by contending that capitalization was allowed by the settlement commission. Reliance was placed upon the decision in ITA No.4552/Mum/2012 and ITA No.6025/Mum/2012 (pages 90 and 92 of the paper book). It was contended that the assessee did not file appeal under the effect of these two orders. Our attention was invited to page 62 of the paper book by contending that the direction of the settlement commiss....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....essing Officer levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2.2. On appeal, before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the penalty was affirmed on the ground that the income was not disclosed in the return, therefore, the concealment was established. The assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal. 2.3. If the observation made in the assessment order/penalty order, leading to imposition of penalty, conclusion drawn in the impugned order, material available on record, assertions made by the ld. respective counsel, if kept in juxtaposition and analyzed, we note that major additions, to the total income, were on account of (a) unexplained cash credit, detected out of the incriminating documents seized during the course of search....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the proceedings before the Settlement Commission (Pages 86 to 91 relevant page 91). Thus, it was held that double addition cannot be made of the amount which is already subjected to tax in the hands of the firm, thus, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. Therefore, from this angle also, no penalty is imposable. Identically vide order dated 07/02/2014, in the case of ACIT vs Haresh N Mehta (the assessee) ITA No.6025/Mum/2012 (pages 92 to 95 of the paper book), the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. Thus, under the effect of these orders of the Tribunal, the assessee did not file any appeal. The direction of the Settlement Commission is binding upon the Assessing Officer. However, this order was not available with the Assessing Officer ....