2019 (8) TMI 155

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed to as 'Act'). 2. It was common ground between the parties that the issue involved in all the appeals was identical, relating to penalty levied u/s 271AAB1)(c) of the Act and emanated from identical set of facts. These appeals were therefore heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, we shall be dealing with the appeal of the assessee in I TA No.1587/Chd/218 and the decision rendered therein will apply mutatis mutandis to other appeals also. ITA No.1587/Chd/2018: (A.Y 2014-15) 3. Brief facts relating to the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer(A.O) noticed that at the time of search proceedings the assessee had admitted undisclosed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....efore the AO or in the course of present proceedings to the effect as to how the case of the appellant is covered under clause (a) or under clause (b) of section 271AAB(l) of the IT act. Therefore, I hold that case of the assessee is covered under the provisions of section 271AAB (l)(c) and the penalty @ minimum 30% or maximum 90% is attracted. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty of Rs. 3,00,000 imposed by the AO u/s 271AAB (l)(c) of the IT Act in this case is found sustainable as per law and hence confirmed." 5. Before us, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee contended that no penalty was leviable in the present case at all since there was no undisclosed income of the assessee, as defined in section 271AAB o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lty @ 30% was harsh and unjustified and further pointed out that in the case of other group concerns of the assessee which were also covered in the search action, penalty had been levied/confirmed @ 10% of the undisclosed income only, in similar facts and circumstances. It was therefore pleaded that considering the similarity of facts and circumstances of the group concerns with the assessee the penalty levied in the present case @ 30% was unjustified and ought to be restricted to 10% only. 7. The Ld. DR countered by stating that since the assessee had suo moto made the surrender, the same tantamounted to undisclosed income of the assessee and penalty, therefore, had been rightly levied. The Ld. DR further rebutted the contention of the ....