2019 (5) TMI 1382

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Nayak, D.R. ORDER PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The above titled three appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 25.01.2016 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08. 2. The only issue raised by the assessee is against the confirmation of penalty by Ld. CIT....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... assessment proceedings declaring an additional income by stating that during the course of search, some list of entries recorded on backside of the page No.3 there appeared an entry of Rs. 3,60,000/- which could not be explained and therefore same is being offered as an additional income amounting to Rs. 4,00,000/-. The assessee submitted that in the return of income filed in response to notice u....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....penalty of Rs. 1,46,370/- was levied. 4. In the appellate proceedings also Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the order of AO by holding that the AO has correctly invoked the provisions of Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) in respect of additional income of Rs. 4,00,000/- shown by the assessee in the revised computation of income during the course of assessment proceedings much after the date of search and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ection 153A of the Act dated 31.12.2010 and the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) dated 07.03.2014, we observe that the penalty was initiated for both the charges as well as imposed on both the charges which is not permissible under the Act as both these limbs are mutually exclusive. Under these circumstances, we are not in a position to sustain the order of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalt....