AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 1758
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....708/2014-15 dated 09.03.2016 arising in the matter of assessment order passed under s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(here-in-after referred to as "the Act") dated 06.03.2014 relevant to Assessment Years (AYs) 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010- 11. 2. The issue involve in all these appeals filed by the assessee are common therefore all of them have been clubbed together for the purpose of brevity, convenience and adjudication. 3. We take ITA No.1381/Ahd/2016 pertaining to Asst. Year 2006-07 as the lead case. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: " 1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of your Appellant's case, the ld. CIT(Appeals) in law has erred in confirming levy of penalty u/s 271....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IT (A) without following any procedure just by stating that his order merges with that of the Ld AO is bad in law and therefore the impugned order is bad in law and required to be quashed in respect of the aforesaid addition of Rs. 84,350/-. Your appellant, therefore, prays your Honour to hold so now and kindly direct the ld. A.O. to delete the impugned penalty levied on Rs. 84,350/-. 1.2 Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstances of your Appellant's case c m law, the Id. CIT(Appeals) has also erred in confirming levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on addition of Rs. 84,350/- made u/s 69C of the Act on the ground of concealment of particulars of income, since the impugned addition is not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oved to be false also. Therefore, appellant submits that levy of penalty on addition of Rs. 84,350/-is unwarranted and therefore, prays Your Honour to kindly hold so now and direct the Id. A.O. to delete the impugned penalty on the said amount of addition." The sole grievance of the assessee is against the order of ld. CIT-A in which the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been confirmed 4. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee in the present case is an individual and engaged in the business of transporter and trading in bitumen as a sole proprietor of M/s. Vivek Roadways and Brij Chemicals. There was a search u/s 132 of the Act conducted at the premises of the assessee dated 11-02-2010....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iculars of income. The ld AR further submitted that the penalty is not sustainable in the cases where the penalty was levied by the AO in his order on one charge but the ld CIT(A) confirmed the penalty on a different charge. The ld AR in support of his claim relied on the order of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Kantibhai Naranbhai Prajapati in ITA No.2880/Ahd/2014 pertaining to the A.Y. 2009-10 vide order dated 15.02.2018. On the other hand ld. DR vehemently supported the order of authorities below. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, we find that in the identical facts and circumstances the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Kantibhai Naranbhai Prajapati (supra) has dele....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n this ground alone. For such a view, we usefully refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of New Sorathia Engineering Company vs. CIT(2006) 282 ITR 642 (Guj.) and CIT vs. Manu Engineering Works (1980) 122 ITR 306 (Guj.). Similar view has been taken by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Gian Chand Batia vs. DCIT 61 ITD 24(All.). Therefore, where concurrent I.T.authorities are not sure about nature of default, the penal action under s.271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable in law." The facts of the case in hand are identical to the facts of the case as discussed above. Therefore, the ratio laid down by this Tribunal in the case of Kantibhai Naranbhai Prajapati (supra) is squarely applicable to the fact....