TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 1358
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty of Rs. 3,96,800/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) ignoring the facts, evidences and submissions placed on record. Thus, the penalty so imposed should be deleted. 2. The appellant craves the leave to add, substitute, modify, delete or amend all or any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing." 2. The assessee has also filed additional ground along with application for admission of additional ground in all four appeals. The addition ground raised by the assessee is common in all the appeals hence, the additional ground raised for the assessment year 2002-03 is reproduced as under:- "The ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 496000/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty proceedings as well as by the ld. CIT(A) in the first appellate proceedings but the assessee did not raise such objection against the validity of notice issued u/s 274 of the Act. The ld. DR has further contended that in the absence of disclosing a reasonable cause which has prevented the assessee from raising such ground before the authorities below the additional ground raise at this stage cannot be accepted. 5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. We find that the additional ground which is common for all these four appeals raised by the assessee is purely legal in nature and goes to the root of the matter. Further, since the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act for initiation of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra) was upheld. Thus, the ld. AR has contended that the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act was bad in law and therefore, consequential penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is also bad in law. 7. On the other hands, the ld. DR has submitted that in this case there was search u/s 132 of the Act wherein the father of the assessee admitted that the assessee has advanced Rs. 12 lacs to Shri Premji Mehta out of his undisclosed income. Further, as per seized material the transactions were also duly found recorded at page 43 of Annexure A-5 however, in the return of income filed u/s 153A of the Act the assessee did not disclose th....