2016 (9) TMI 710

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nos. CIT(A)-II/CCIT( 3/13/2011-12, CIT(A)-II/CC-3/14 & 15/2011-12 & CIT(A)-II/CC- 3/16/2011-12, confirming Assessing Officer's action in imposing penalties of Rs. 5,21,681/- Rs. 2,27,767/- and Rs. 3,27,438/-; respectively, proceedings under section 271(1) (C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short "the Act". We proceed assessment year-wise for the sake of convenience and brevity. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 IT(SS)A 151/Ahd/2013 2. This assessee-an individual manages and runs tuition classes. The department carried out a search at the residence of one Shri Jitendrabhai B. Sojitra on 07-11-2006 engaged in the very vocation. The assessee herein was admittedly associated to the said searched person. This search followed a survey conducted o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....essee's disclosure of Rs. 31 lacs (supra) could not be taxed once again in the impugned assessment year as follows:- "5. We have considered rival submissions carefully and have perused the orders of the AO and the CIT(A) and also the copy of the statement of the assessee recorded at the time of survey on 7.11.2006 filed in the compilation before the Tribunal. We find that there were discrepancies in the receipt of fees as per the statement of the assessee recorded during the survey on 7.11.2006 and as shown by the assessee in his return of income for the different assessment years. The AO has reproduced in tabular form the relevant figures at page no.5 of the assessment order. The total of such difference in receipt of fees for the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erence twice, which amounts to double taxation, which is not permitted under the law, and accordingly, we hold that no separate addition on account of difference in the figure of receipt of fees, is called for. We find that the CIT(A) was justified in upholding the claim of the assessee that the receipt of Rs. 1,24,000/- from Mouni Tuition Classes was not earned by the assessee as he was providing honorary service to the said Institute, which is evident from the certificate issued by Mouni Study Centre. In this view of the matter, the issue is decided in favour of the assessee, as there is no justification in making the addition on account of difference in figures of receipt of tuition fees for the relevant assessment year separately, the s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in question. We reiterate that quantum and penalty are separate proceedings and each and every disallowance/addition made in former does not lead to automatic application of the latter penal provision as held by hon'ble apex court in CIT vs. Reliance PetroI. products 322 ITR 158 (SC). We accept assessee's arguments accordingly. The impugned penalty of Rs. 5,21,681/- stands deleted. IT(SS)A 151/Ahd/2013 is accepted. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 ITA 834/Ahd/2013 8. Both parties state at the outset that section 271(1)(c) penalty in question of Rs. 2,27,767/- emanates from suppressed receipts from un-recorded tuition classes being added to the tune of Rs. 4,13,550/- and Rs. 3,50,000/- under the head unexplained investments. 9. We put up a ....