AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (12) TMI 1194
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ITA No.1825/PN/2012 (A.Y. 2004-05) : 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and derives income from business, i.e. interest from firm as a partner and dividend income. The original return of income u/s.139(1) of the I.T. Act was filed by the assessee declaring total income of Rs. 3,94,132/-. A search and seizure action u/s.132 of the I.T. Act was conducted in the Sahayog group on 22-11-2007 during which the premises of the assessee was also covered as per the assessment order. The cases of M/s. Sahayog group were centralized and thereafter notice u/s.153A of the I.T. Act was issued to the assessee. In response to the said notice, the assessee furnished the return for A.Y. 2004-05 on 26-06-2009 declaring to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eturn of income on 18-10-2005 declaring total income of Rs. 3,94,132/-. The business premises of the assessee firm were searched u/s.132 of the Act on 22-11-2007. No warrant of authorization was issued in the name of the assessee. Therefore, the assessment proceedings initiated u/s.153A is not valid. It was submitted that in response to notice u/s.153A, the assessee filed return of income on 30-11-2009 declaring total income at Rs. 4,79,132/-. However, inadvertently, the assessee included an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs being the amount invested in FD with JRKD, a Credit Cooperative society, Jalgaon in the return of income filed for A.Y. 2005-06 u/s.153A of the Act instead of the A.Y. 2004-05. The said error was rectified by filing second return ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(1)(c) are not applicable to the case. Further, the assessee has offered to tax the investment in FDR of Rs. 15,85,000/- for A.Y. 2004-05 as additional income to tax only to buy peace of mind. In subsequent years, he has offered to tax the interest income on such FDR as additional income. The assessee has also paid the taxes. He, therefore, was of the opinion that the Explanation of the assessee is plausible and hence bonafide and the said explanation has not been found to be false. Relying on various decisions he deleted the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A) the Revenue is in appeal before us with the following grounds : "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in la....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Tribunal in the case of Dhiraj Suri Vs. Addl.CIT reported in 98 ITD 187, he submitted that an additional ground regarding validity of assessment which involves the pure legal question not involving any investigation into facts can be admitted for decision in appeal against penalty. Referring to the said decision he submitted that since there was no warrant of authorization us/.132 in the name of the assessee, the block assessment becomes void ab-initio and therefore, the penalty levied cannot be sustained. Referring to the statement of facts filed by the Revenue, he drew the attention of the Bench to Point Nos. 4 and 5 which reads as under : "4. No warrant of authorization was issued in the name of the appellant. 5. The appellant acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee in his rejoinder submitted that the assessee in the case of Shri Raghav Bahl has not challenged the assumption of jurisdiction in quantum appeal and the same has been upheld by the Tribunal. Therefore, it was held that once the assumption of jurisdiction has been upheld by the Tribunal in quantum proceedings, the Co-ordinate Bench in a subsequent proceedings, i.e., in penalty proceedings, cannot pass an order holding that order passed by the Tribunal earlier was a wrong order and assumption of jurisdiction by the AO in framing assessment u/s.158BD was bad in law. However, in the instant case, there is no such occasion for the assessee to challenge the validity of the Block assessment in appeal since the returned income has been ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No.6 before CIT(A) as per Form No.35 and which reads as under : "The penalty proceedings initiated on the basis of assessment proceedings u/s.153A of the Act which were bad in law, cannot be taken as legal and as such levy of penalty cannot be sustained in law". 9.2 We further find Point No.4 and 5 of the statement of facts filed before Ld.CIT(A) reads as under : "4. No warrant of authorization was issued in the name of the appellant. 5. The appellant accordingly objected to the validity of the proceedings u/s.153A commenced against him". 9.3 Similarly, in the submissions before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee has also stated that no warrant of authorization was issued in the name of the assessee. However, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) on the....