AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 102
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2003-04 respectively. Since the issues involved in these appeals are identical and common, hence, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience, by dealing with I. T. A. No. 894/Delhi/2013 (assessment year 2006-07). 2. The grounds, of appeal raised in the assessee's appeal read as under : "1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the order of the learned Assessing Officer levying penalty on the appellant under section 271(l)(c) of the Act amounting to INR 60,00,000. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant. 6. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in completely failing to appreciate that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied on matters involving questions of law. 7. Without prejudice to the above, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the levy of penalty of more than the amount of tax sought to be evaded, without giving any reasons for the same." The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of this appeal. 2.1 In all other appeals, identical issues are involved and similar grounds have been raised, the only difference is in the figures ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1(1)(c) of the Act is illegal and bad in law." 3.1 The learned counsel for the assessee requested that keeping in view of the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC) (supra), the additional grounds raised by the assessee in all the three appeals may be admitted and decided first. 4. On the contrary, learned Departmental representative strongly opposed the admission of additional grounds (legal) raised by the assessee. 5. After hearing both the parties as well as perusing the additional ground along with the orders passed by the Revenue authorities, we are of the considered view that in view of the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court of India in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that explanation of the assessee cannot be regarded to be in good faith, therefore, the penalty of Rs. 60,00,000 was imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, vide order dated February 29, 2012. 7. Against the penalty order the assessee appealed before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who vide his common impugned order dated November 30, 2012 has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by confirming the penalty in dispute. 8. At the time of hearing, learned counsel of the assessee draw our attention towards the assessment order dated October 11, 2010 passed under section 143(3) of the Act and has stated that the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment has not recorded the satisfaction ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessment order dated October 11, 2010 passed under section 143(3) of the Act and found that the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment has not recorded the satisfaction and has not initiated the penalty proceedings. Similarly, at the time of imposing the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the Assessing Officer has levied the penalty, but did not mention under which limb the penalty has been imposed whether it is on account of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. Therefore, the entire penalty proceedings stand vitiated. In view of above, the penalty is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the following decisions : "(i) CIT v. SSA's Emerald Meadows 2015 (....