TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1133
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rred to as 'Act'), confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271AAA, u/s 271(1)(c) and u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act respectively. 2. Since all the appeals relate to the same assessee and involve common issues also, they were taken up together for hearing and are disposed off by this common consolidated order. We shall first be taking up the assessee's appeal in ITA No.395/Chd/2018 pertaining to assessment year 2010-11 challenging the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in confirming penalty levied u/s 271AAA of the Act vide his order dated 16.2.2018. ITA No.395/Chd/2018(A.Y.2010-11): 3. At the outset Ld. counsel for assessee stated that the additions on which penalty had been levied in the present case had been restored back to the Assessing Officer (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....However penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271AAA of the Act on the entire amount of labour charges admitted by the assessee as bogus of Rs. 99,96,580/-and penalty levied on the same. The Ld.CIT(A) deleted the penalty levied on the labour charges surrendered by the assessee to the extent of Rs. 50 lakhs, holding that no penalty was leviable since the assessee had surrendered the same in his statement u/s 132(4) of the Act. However he upheld penalty levied on the balance amount of Rs. 49,96,580/- 6. The Ld. counsel for assessee thereafter pointed out that the I.T.A.T. had decided the quantum appeal filed by the assessee for the impugned year before it restoring the impugned issue back to the file of the A.O. Copy of the order was plac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The Ld. counsel for assessee pointed out that this addition had also been restored back to the A.O. by the I.T.A.T. vide its order in ITA No.136/Chd/2015 at paras 7 to 7.5 as under: "7. Ground No. 6 relates to addition of Rs. 1,72/20,000/- on account of land deal. 7.1 During the search, a sale deed dt. 31/08/2009 entered between the assessee and one Smt. Pavit Kaur of Shimla. As per the sale deed the assessee sold property comprising of land and building for a consideration of Rs. 42,00,000/- whereas the market value of the property as per registration authorities was Rs. 2,18,20,000/- hence the Assessing Officer has brought the difference of amount between the sale and the value determined as per the stamp duty authorit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e transactions have been restored back to the A.O. by the I.T.A.T. vide its order in ITA No.136/Chd/2015 dated 13.6.2018, the additions no longer survive and, therefore, the basis for levy of penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act also does not survive. The penalty so levied to the tune of Rs. 22,27,660/- is, therefore, directed to be deleted. The appeal of the assessee stands allowed. ITA No.396/Chd/2018(A.Y. 20190-11): 12. In the impugned case the assessee has challenged the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for assessee stated that the addition on which penalty had been levied in the present case had been deleted by the I.T.A.T. in the appeal filed by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... During the search documents marked A-l was impounded from the premises of M/s Shimla British Resort, a guest house run by the assessee showing receipts of Rs. 1,61,500/- for the period of 06/06/2009 to 02/08/2009. The Assessing Officer has extrapolated this amount for the entire year to Rs. 6,40,000/- based on the decision of ITAT Hyderabad which held that where a regular pattern of suppression is established the lawful presumption is that there is suppression of whole of the assessment year but subject to adjustment of special factors. 6.2 Before us, it was argued by the Ld. AR that if was a trial run made on the basis for the purpose of selling out the resort. Secondly, if it is assumed that the resort has been run for the entir....