TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 947
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XXXIII, New Delhi, qua the assessment year 2008-09 on the grounds, inter alia, that : "1. That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has, in view of the facts and in the circumstances of the case, erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer. The penalty order is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 2. That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has, in view of the facts and in the circumstances of the case, erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty of Rs. 12,24,600 levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has, in view of the fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecember 23, 2008. On the basis of search carried out on February 10, 2009, in the Dawat group of cases including the assessee, the assessee was called upon to file its return of income under section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act"), which it has filed on December 8, 2009, declaring an income at Rs. 59,80,520, inclusive of additional income from trading business amounting to Rs. 36,02,828. The assessment of the assessee under section 153A of the Act was completed on December 31, 2010, at Rs. 59,80,520 and the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A were ordered to be initiated. 3. The assessee, in response to the notice issued under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Act, fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Tribunal, the assessee by moving an application sought to incorporate the following additional grounds of appeal, hereinafter mentioned, on the ground that these are the legal grounds going to the root of the issue involved in the case : "10. That the notice issued and the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction as search has taken place after June 1, 2007, and as per the provisions of section 271AAA sub-section (3) no penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be imposed in respect of the alleged undisclosed income. 11. That no satisfaction has been recorded while completing the assessment, hence notice issued under section 274 and the order passed under section 271(1)(c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rned Departmental representative relied upon the penalty order as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 9. Before proceeding further, we would like to decide the legal issue first, "as to whether the penalty imposed upon the assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, vide order dated June 28, 2011, affirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), vide the impugned order, is legally not sustainable in view of the amended provisions contained under sub- section (1) of section 271AAA of the Act ? 10. For facility of reference, the provisions contained under sub-section (2) of section 271AAA are reproduced as under : "271AAA. (1) The Assessing Officer may, notwithsta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting to Rs. 36,02,828, which he has not disclosed earlier. It is also not in dispute between the parties to the appeal that the penalty proceedings were initiated under section 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A. 12. It is also not in dispute that the assessee during the search and seizure proceedings categorically admitted that the undisclosed income of Rs. 36,02,828 has been accrued to him along with his three brothers in their individual capacity by way of trading in various commodities and real estates and all these facts got duly corroborated from the seized material. 13. When the aforesaid undisputed facts are examined in the light of the amended provisions contained under sub-sections (2) and (3) of section271AAA, the penalty i....