TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (6) TMI 973
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In view of the AR's agreement that issue is squarely covered by the order of the Tribunal in other group members of the assessee, respectfully following the same, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the CIT(A) for confirming the addition made u/s.68. 2.1 In both the appeals, assessee has taken additional ground to the effect that assessment made u/s.143 read with Section 153A on the basis of search under Section 132 is not a de novo assessment as power of review is not available under the Act. The assessee has also taken a legal ground to the effect that warrant of authorization issued for the search was in joint names of various individuals but separate order of assessment was passed for the assessee in whose name alone there was no search warrant thereby rendering the order of assessment as invalid. 2.2 We found that similar plea was taken by the assessee in case of Satish L. Babladi and the Tribunal vide order dated 19-3-2013 held as under :- "4.2 Coming to the decisions cited by the parties, we find that the preponderance of the judicial view is in the favour of the validity of the assessment made on an individual pursuant to search being auth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y, how is the assessment/s in the individual name of the assessee, one of the persons in respect of whom the search is conducted or carried out, not so? Merely because a common WOA is issued in respect of more than one person, does not imply existence of a joint entity or an Association of Persons (AOP) comprising them. The WOA names four persons, whose names are separately mentioned, with a comma in between. That would signify of it being a warrant authorizing a search at the premises/location/address mentioned therein in respect of the four named persons, in the same manner as if their names were written in a more formal format, as (refer PB pgs. 5-6): 1) Satish Babladi, 2) Rajesh Babladi, 3) Asha Babladi, and 4) Laxmikant Babladi. The WOA is, as already noted earlier, issued place-wise. As such, if the undisclosed income or assets of more than one person/individual are expected to be found at a particular place, a single warrant for its search, mentioning their individual names, can be issued, even as explained by the hon'ble court in the case of Raghu Raj Pratap Singh (supra), noting that the relevant column (for mentioning the n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndividuals (BOI) comprising them, and are inclined to favour the pre-dominant judicial view as expressed by three high courts, including the Allahabad High Court itself. The assessee's legal plea is, accordingly, dismissed, disposing its ground no. 1 as well as the additional ground no. 1. 2.3 In view of the decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in case of one of the group members of the assessee, we do not find any merit in the contention of the assessee for holding that the order of assessment was invalid on the plea that warrant of authorization issued for the search was in joint names of various individuals but separate order of assessment was passed for the assessee. 2.4 In the result, both the appeals are dismissed. ITA No.2110/Mum/2010(AY : 2006-07) 3. In this case the grievance of the assessee relates to addition of Rs. 27,50,000/- on account long term capital gains. Learned AR fairly conceded that this issue is also covered against the assessee by the order of the coordinate bench in the case of group member Shri Satish L. Babladi, ITA No.1732&2109/M/2010, order dated 19-3-2013. Copy of the order was also filed by the learned AR. Respectfully followi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0001- after allowing exemption u/s. 54EC at Rs. 1,37,00,000/- in the A.Y.2006-07. However, on the other hand, the appellant has argued that the possession was taken in' the FY 2006-07, therefore, the amount of capital gain was shown in the A Y 2007-08 for taxation. In the penalty proceedings, the Assessing Officer has given show cause notice to the assessee to explain why penalty may not be levied for submitting inaccurate particulars and concealment of income u/s. 271 (1)(c). In response to this show cause notice, the appellant has not submitted any reply before the Assessing Officer, therefore, the Assessing Officer has levied a minimum penalty @ 100%. 4.2 By the impugned order, CIT(A) deleted the penalty after having following observations :- "2.4 I have considered the submission of the appellant, order of the Assessing Officer and facts of the case in brief are that the assessee family has received arbitration award amounting to Rs. 4,60,00,0001-, out of which the assessee's share was of Rs. 1,65,00,0001-. The Assessing Officer has observed that transfer of asset took place in the FY 2005-06 and computed long term. capital gain at Rs. 27,50,0001- after allow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Rs. 2,992/-. Since the amount is too small, therefore, penalty levied is deleted. In the view of the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court as relied upon by the appellant supra, it is held that penalty u/s.271(1)(c) is not leviable hence, deleted. 4.3 Against the above order of CIT(A), Revenue is in further appeal before us. 4.4 We have considered rival contentions and found from record that family members of assessee have received arbitration award amounting to Rs. 4.60 crores, out of which assessee's share was 1.65 crores. As the compensation was awarded for transfer of asset in the financial year 2005-06, the AO computed long term capital gain in the assessment year 2006-07 amounting to Rs. 27,50,000/- after allowing exemption u/s.54EC. The contention of the assessee was that possession was taken in the financial year 2006-07, therefore, amount of capital gain was shown in the assessment year 2007-08 for taxation. We found that on protective basis, the AO has also assessed the capital gain in the assessment year 2007-08, since the amount was added in the assessment year 2006-07, the AO imposed penalty for concealment of particulars in the assessment year 2006-07. It is cle....