2018 (11) TMI 1658

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the of the Assessee and Ms.V.S. Sreelekha represented on behalf the of the Revenue. 3. It was submitted by ld. A.R that the assessee is an individual, who is doing real estate business. Consequent to Search and Seizure Operation on the assessee 03.09.2013, the assessment came to be passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.153A of the Act on 31.03.2016 wherein the returned income of the assessee had been accepted. It was a submission that assessment year involved is 2012-13 and the return filed on 20.11.2015in response to the notice u/s.153A was the first return filed. The assessment came to be completed on 31.03.2016 and penalty proceedings initiated u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act was also initiated simultaneously. It was a submission that the assessee had r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Tax passed u/s.263 of the Act. It was a submission that the dropping of the penalty proceedings was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The ld.D.R placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Toyota Motor Corporation reported in 306 ITR 52 SC wherein in respect of failure to deduct tax at source, the ld. Assessing Officer had initiated penalty proceedings, but had dropped them without giving detailed reasons, then the Commissioner of Income Tax had invoked the power of revision and had directed the ld. Assessing Officer to pass reasoned order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had upheld the Order u/s.263 and directed that the order was valid in so far as it was the duty of the ld. Assessing Off....