2017 (5) TMI 1105

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting penalty of Rs. 14,84,400/- imposed by AO u/s. 271(1)(c) on account of addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- being business income offered by the appellant during the course of survey operation. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in considering appellant submissions that Appellant submission that appellant had surrendered Rs. 30,00,000/- under pressure during the survey. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the order without considering the order passed by the AO. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellant craves leave to add, allow or amend any all the ground of appeal before or during the course....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ount of Rs. 30 lacs should not be included in the current year on account of surrendered income during survey u/s. 133A of the Act plus average of 2 years income from business and profession of the assessee. In response to the aforesaid order entry dated 10.8.2009, the assessee filed a reply stating that since no discrepancy was found in the books of accounts and the assessee has offered Rs. 30 lacs only to buy the peace. During the Survey assessee offered that we have no objection if assessment for the financial years is made by considering the taxable profit of Rs. 30 lacs which was surrendered during the survey proceedings plus average taxable profit of the last two preceding years, subject to penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act read with ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dhoc basis for that penalty is not leviable. AO has considered the explanation given by the assessee and held that assessee is in default in furnishing inaccurate particulars of his income. Accordingly, the minimum penalty @100% u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 14,84,400/- was imposed on the assessee on the addition of Rs. 45,76,654/- vide order dated 30.3.2012 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the penalty order, assessee filed appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority who vide his impugned order dated 18.11.2013 allowed the appeal filed by the Assessee by deleting the penalty of Rs. 14,64,400/- imposed by the AO by holding that the penalty in dispute is not leviable merely for not including the surrendered ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or 01.5.2017 was never received back unserved. Therefore, keeping in view facts and circumstances as explained above, we are of the view that assessee is not interested to prosecute the matter in dispute and no useful purpose would be served to issue notice again and again to the assessee. Therefore, we are deciding the Revenue's Appeal exparate qua assessee, after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records. 8. At the time of hearing Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the AO and the contentions raised by the Department in the grounds of appeal. 9. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the orders of the authorities below and we are of the view that the assessee has surrendered Rs. 30 lacs vide its letter dated 13.3.2007 addressed to th....