TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 420
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n to already undisclosed income of Rs. 65.78 lacs. 2. On the fact and law the Ld. CIT(A), New Delhi has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 21,36,111/- made by the AO by ignoring the fact that addition made by the AO should be added to the income which has been returned by the assessee. 3. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this hearing." 3. The grounds raised in IT(SS)A No. 36/Del/2012 read as under:- 1. On the facts and law the Ld. CIT(A), New Delhi has erred in deleting the entire concealment penalty of Rs. 43,42,100/- in spite of the fact that the quantum addition had been confirmed by the ITAT. 2. On the facts and law the Ld. CIT(A), New Delhi has erred in deleting the entire penalty despite the fact that the addition was made only after search operation, otherwise the assessee was deliberately concealing the facts and had filed inaccurate particulars of income. 3. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this hearing." IT(SS)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Assessing Officer and reiterated the contentions raised in the grounds of Appeal. 6.1 On the other hand, Ld. Counsel of the Assessee relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order which does not need any interference and the same may be upheld. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the records, especially the Order of the revenue authorities. The facts emerges from the order of the AO is that a search u/s 132(1) was conducted in this case on 25/02/2003 and various incriminating books of documents were seized during the course of search. The block assessment proceedings were initiated for the block period 1.4.1996 to 25.2.2003 and the AO had issued notice u/s. 158BC for filing of the block return. The assessee had filed the block return and declared undisclosed income in the block return of Rs. 21,36,111/-. The AO had taken up the case for scrutiny and completed the block assessment at the total assessed income of Rs. 2,92,43,457/- as against the undisclosed block return income of Rs. 21,36,111/- and as such has made the addition of Rs. 2,71,07,346/- (Rs. 2,92,43,457 (-) Rs. 21,36,111) under the two different heads w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessed income as per the order of the Tribunal is Rs. 65,78,933/- only (GP of Rs. 59,02,540/-- (+) peak credit of Rs. 6,76,393/-) and as such the assessed income of the assessee should be Rs. 65,78,933/- only as the undisclosed block income of Rs. 21,36,111/- has already been offered by the assessee. The petition u/s 154 submitted by the assessee was rejected by the AO on the ground that the AO has made the correct assessment which has been upheld by the Tribunal. 7.1 The assessee was in appeal against the order of the rejection of petition u/s 154 by the AO and it was submitted that the AO was not justified to reject the petition u/s 154 of the assessee without any valid reasons. It was submitted that the assessee had already filed the undisclosed block return of Rs. 21,36,111/- whereas the Tribunal has confirmed the undisclosed income of Rs. 65,78,933/- only which included the undisclosed block return income of the assessee of Rs. 21,36,111/-. It was further submitted that the total undisclosed income of the assessee is Rs. 65,78,933/- after the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) and the Tribunal and there is double addition of the undisclosed block income of Rs. 21,36,111/- which has b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rightly allowed. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we do find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A), which in our opinion, does not need any interference on our part, hence, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and dismiss the ground raised by the Revenue. As a result, the Revenue's appeal stands dismissed. IT(SS) No. 36/Del/2012 8. The brief facts of the case are that the AO has passed the penalty order u/s. 158BFA(2) on 30.12.2009 imposing the penalty of Rs. 43,42,100/- against which the assessee has filed the Appeal on 27.1.2010 before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order 08.5.2012 has deleted the penalty in dispute and allowed the appeal of the assessee. 9. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 8.5.2012, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and reiterated the contentions raised in the grounds of Appeal. In support of her contention, she filed a copy of the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Harkaran Das Ved Pal reported in 336 ITR 8 (Delhi) and stated that the present issue of penalty is fully covered by the sai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... income of Rs. 21,36 111/- and as such the AO should only assess the total income of Rs. 65,78,933/-. The main submission of the assessee was that the assessee has filed the block return income of Rs. 21,36,111/- on the basis of seized books of documents etc and the AO has also made the additions on the basis of same seized books of documents etc and finally the Ld.CIT(A) and the Tribunal has confirmed the total addition of Rs. 65,78,933/- which includes the declared block return income of Rs. 21,36,111/- and as such the AO should not add the block return income of Rs. 21,36,111/- in addition to Rs. 65,78,933/-. It is submitted that the AO did not make any separate addition of Rs. 21,36,111/- in original order u/s 158BC dated 25/02/2005 in which the block return income of the assessee of Rs. 21,36,111/- had been merged with the total assessed income and as such the AO is not justified to make the separate addition of Rs. 21,36,111/- while giving the appeal effect to the order of the Tribunal. It was further submitted that at the best the AO could levy the penalty on the extra addition of Rs. 44,42,822/- (Rs 65,78,933/- (-) Rs. 21,36,111/-). It was further submitted before the Ld. C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s found that AO was not justified to make the addition of Rs. 65,78,933/- in addition to the undisclosed return income of Rs. 21,36,111/- which was filed by the assessee during the course of block proceedings and as such the AO has ignored the block return income of Rs. 21,36,111/- which is the part of the total undisclosed income of the assessee of Rs. 65,78,933/-. It is apparent that the total undisclosed income as per the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the Tribunal is Rs. 65,78,933/- which included the undisclosed block return income of Rs. 21,36,111/- and as such the AO should only assess the total income of Rs. 65,78,933/- only. Since the block return income of Rs. 21,36,111/- is included or inbuilt in the income of Rs. 65,78,933/- the AO at the best could have levied the penalty only on the additional income of Rs. 44,42,822/- (Rs. 65,78,933 (-) Rs. 21,36,111/-). We also find that it is apparent that there has been differences of opinions among the assessee, AO, Ld. CIT(A) and the Tribunal and as such there is also a variation of estimate of income at every stage and as such income of the assessee has been estimated at every stage and the AO was not justified to levy of penalty o....