TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 1219
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th the parties and perused the material available on record. It is stated that the facts are same in all the appeals. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessments in these cases were completed at different incomes. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee is a trust/AOP and had claimed exemption under section 11 of the Act but it had not been registered under section 12AA of the Act for the assessment years under appeals. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had received donations during the years and as per sections 2(24) and 11(1) (d) of the Act, the donations and corpus donations respectively formed the income of the trust and in the absence of registration under s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent. Later on, the assessee was registered as charitable trust under section 12AA of the Act from assessment year 2013-14 because the learned Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Ludhiana granted the registration vide order dated 17.9.2013 from assessment year 2013-14. On the same facts, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were not initiated in assessment year 2011-12. The penalty proceedings on the same facts have been dropped for assessment years 2009-10 and 2012-13. The penalty proceedings for assessment year 2010-11 are pending. The learned CIT (Appeals), however, did not accept the contention of the assessee because there was no registration granted under section 12AA of the Act in favour of the assessee in these years. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dings against the assessee 6. On the other hand, the learned D.R. relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of New Bijli Foundry Vs. CIT, 135 ITR 593, in which the findings of the Tribunal regarding concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate return had not been disputed. The learned D.R. also submitted that the penalty is strictly a civic liability and relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI Vs. Dharmendra Textile processors & Others, 306 ITR 277 and CIT Vs. Atul Mohan Bindal, 317 ITR 1. 6.1 On consideration of the facts of the case, it may be noted that the assessee trust executed the trust deed dated 24.2.1984 and was duly registered. It is also explained....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ircumstances in the assessment order did not initiate the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer also passed the assessment order for assessment years 2009-10 and 2012-13 mentioning the same facts in the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act and also initiated the penalty proceedings but vide separate orders dropped the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is, therefore, clear that in three years, the Assessing Officer did not take any action against the assessee on the same facts and circumstances for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer should have followed the rule of consistency and on the same set of facts should not ....