TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (12) TMI 1194
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 total income of Rs. 4,79,132/-. This return was subsequently revised on 27-07-2009 declaring income of Rs. 19,79,132/-. The assessee filed the requisite details from time to time on the basis of the notices issued u/s.143(2) and 142(1). Subsequently, the AO after considering the various submissions filed by the assessee determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 19,79,132/-. 2.1 The assessee did not prefer any appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) since the returned income was accepted. Subsequently, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. He observed that as against the original return of Rs. 3,94,132/- filed u/s.139(1), the assessee has filed a return showing income of Rs. 19,79,132/- by offering additional income of Rs. 15,85,000/-. This according to the AO was due to the search action conducted u/s.132 of the I.T. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... he observed that in the impugned case no money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article is involved. It is only the investment in FDR as additional income for A.Y. 2004-05 and interest on FDRs for A.Y. 2005-06 to 2007-08 as additional income. There is no direct or indirect linkage brought on record with reference to any of the specified seized materials so as to establish the charge for which the penalty has been levied. Therefore, he held that Explanation 5A to provisions of section 271(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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....him". 6.2 Referring to para 6 (page 2) of the CIT(A)'s order he again drew the attention of the Bench to the submissions made by the assessee before CIT(A) where it was mentioned as under : "6.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No warrant of authorization was issued in the name of the appellant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 6.3 He submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated this issue although a specific ground was taken before him in grounds of appeal No.6 in Form No.35 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". He submitted that since all the facts are available on record and no fresh investigation is required, therefore, the entire assessment order becomes void ab-initio and therefore the penalty levied by the AO cannot be sustained. Therefore, the grounds raised by the Revenue should be dismissed. 7. The Ld. Departmental Representative strongly objected to the above. He submitted that the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Shri Raghav Bahl ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ld.CIT(A) which remained unadjudicated. We find the assessee has taken ground of appeal 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 issue of validity of the assessment proceedings due to no warrant of authorization is silent. 9.4 We find the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dhiraj Suri (Supra) has held that a search u/s.132 of the I.T. Act is person specific and not premises specific. Therefore, it follows that if the name of the assessee against whom the block asse....