TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 838
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion under section 132 of the Act carried out at the business and residential premises of Prakash Steelage Group and its Directors on 09.02.2009, the assessee was found to be in possession of jewellery valued at Rs. 24,38,172/- out of which jewellery valued at Rs. 16,84,686/- was found to be unexplained. The assessee filed her return of income for A.Y. 2009-10 on 30.03.2010 declaring total income of Rs. 5,70,970/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 22.12.2010, wherein the total income of the assessee was determined at Rs. 22,55,650/- in view of the addition of Rs. 16,84,686/- on account of the unexplained jewellery. Penalty proceedings were initiated simultaneously in the order of assessment by is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 271(1)(c) of the Act to the seized jewellery of Rs. 1,93,242/-. 3.1 The assessee, being aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A)-37, Mumbai dated 31.05.2012 confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 2009-10, in respect of diamond jewellery valued at Rs. 1,93,424/-, has preferred this appeal raising the following grounds: - "1. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) (herein referred as "CIT(A)") has erred in confirming the portion of Penalty levied to the extent of Rs. 59,768/- on addition of Rs. 1,93,424/- out of total penalty levied of Rs. 5,20,568/- on addition made of Rs. 16,84,686/- in the order passed U/s 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961. The aforesaid Penalty is upheld to the extent of Rs. 5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the learned CIT(A) in respect of the sustaining of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of unexplained jewellery of Rs. 1,93,424/-. According to the learned D.R., in the course of search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act in the case of Prakash Steelage Group on 09.02.2009, the assessee was found in possession of jewellery valued at Rs. 24,38,2172/- out of which jewellery amounting to Rs. 16,84,686/- was found to be unexplained (i.e. gold jewellery of Rs. 10,70,315/- plus diamonds of Rs. 6,14,371/-) which was not offered to tax in the relevant return of income. The same was brought to tax in the assessee's hands and subsequently penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied thereon. The learn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3,424/- was found and seized and brought to tax in the assessee's hands; not as estimated income. It is submitted that these cited cases being factually different are not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand and therefore would not come ot the assessee's rescue. 3.4.1 We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused and carefully considered the material on record. The facts of the matter, as emanate from the record, are that pursuant to search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act in the case of Prakash Steelage Group on 09.02.2009, the assessee was found to be in possession of jewellery amounting to Rs. 24,38,172/-, out of which jewellery of Rs. 16,84,686/- (comprising gold jewellery of Rs. 10,70,315....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... authorities below that the diamonds of Rs. 1,93,424/- seized in search action under section 132 of the Act were unexplained. We have respectfully perused the judicial pronouncements cited by the assessee and humbly concur with the averments of the learned D.R. for Revenue that these judgements are clearly distinguishable on facts from the case on hand and pertain to issues of either (a) rejection of assessee's claim of whether expenditure was capital or revenue in nature (cited case at S. No. (1)) or (b) were cases where estimation of income was made and for both of which the Hon'ble courts had held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not leviable. In our view, the case on hand stands on a different footing from the cited cases (s....