TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 259
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ereas the Ld. Assessing officer has not provided proper opportunity of hearing which is against the natural justice and the assessment order passed u/s 271(1)(c) be quashed. 2 That the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the penalty under Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 18,39,180/-. 4. Brief facts relating to the case are that a search u/s 132(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 16.01.2009 at the residence and office premises of the individuals and group concerns of M/s A.P. Shresth (Kangan) group of cases by the Investigation Wing, Chandigarh. A survey operation u/s 133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee i.e. Kangan Jewellery Shop, SCO 852, NAC, Manimajra, Chandigarh. During the course of search at the residence of Shri Sandeep Bansal, partner of the assessee firm document A-3 was seized. The said document was a loose bunch of papers containing details of purchases, sales and other expenses / receipts of the assessee for different periods. Similarly, documents A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-8 & A-9, seized from the residence of Shri Sandeep Bansal contained details of purchases / sales and other....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee drew our attention to the fact that the addition made and upheld in quantum proceedings by the Ld.CIT(A) amounting to Rs. 29,34,872/- u/s 68 of the Act, on which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) had been levied, had been restored to the AO for deciding afresh, by the ITAT vide its order in ITA No. 43/Chd/2013 and ITA No. 222/Chd/2013 dated 29.4.2016. Copy of the order was placed on record. Ld. Counsel, therefore, pleaded that since the basis of levy of penalty no longer existed, the penalty levied ought to the deleted. 6. The Ld. DR conceded that the addition made had been restored to the AO, by the ITAT in quantum proceedings. 7. We have considered the submissions of both the parties. We have also gone through the order of the ITAT passed in quantum proceedings for the impugned assessment year in ITA No. 43/Chd/2013 and in ITA No. 222/Chd/2013. The appeal in ITA No. 43/Chd/2013, is the assessee's appeal pertaining to A.Y 2007-08 i.e the impugned A.Y,wherein the ground of appeal raised by the assessee was against the confirmation of addition of Rs. 25,29,110/- u/s 68 of the Act on account of peak credit, while the appeal in ITA No. 222/Chd/2013 is the Revenue's appeal against th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2,73,250/- According to Ld. Counsel for the assessee, the above period may be taken as one period and should not be broken into months / quarters / years or any other period. According to him, the above period is in continuity and, therefore, period in the consideration should not be broken into months / quarters etc. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, we find considerable force in the above submissions of Shri Neeraj Jain, Ld. Counsel for the assessee. Accordingly, we set aside the findings of the CIT(A) on this issue and remand the issue to the file of the Assessing officer with a direction to decide the same afresh in accordance with law after affording due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Shri Neeraj Jain, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that addition of Rs. 5,37,900/- has been made u/s 68 on account of peak credit of Annexure-3 for the assessment year 2006-07 and the benefit of the said addition may be given in this year. We remand this issue also to the file of the Assessing officer for reconsideration in accordance with law. Accordingly, ground No.4 of the ITA No. 43/Chd/2013 and Ground No.1 of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ks of account. The peak credit of these entries have been worked out at Rs. 7,38,700/- by the Assessing officer and the same was added u/s 68 of the Act to the total income of the assessee. 34. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition for the reasons stated in para 6.1 of the impugned order, which reads as under:- 6.1 I find that the content of the seized documents have been reproduced in the impugned order to work out the peak credit It is the assessee's contention that the transaction dates are continuous from 12.02.2006 and that all the documents seized pertaining to different assessment year should be considered for working out one single peak credit This contention was found in accurate and consequently where ever there was a break in the transaction dates and where the opening and dosing balances did not tally, peak credits have been worked out separately as evident from the appellate orders for AY 2007-08 and 2006- 07. Though it is assessee's contention that annexure A-9 is linked to annexure A-4 the same is found to be incorrect as the opening and closing balances differ. Therefore this document is taken to be an independent transaction. Accord....