TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 991
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t years but the facts and issues involved in both the appeals are identical except for the assessment year and the amounts involved and therefore the submissions made by them while arguing one appeal would be equally applicable to the other appeal also and thus both the appeals can be heard together. In view of the aforesaid submissions of both the parties, we, for the sake of convenience, proceed to dispose of both the appeals by a consolidated order. 3. The relevant facts as culled out from the material on record are as under :- Assessee is a partnership firm stated to be engaged in the business of trading of steel material. Assessee filed its original return of income on 31.10.2006 for A.Y. 2006-07 declaring total income at Rs. 29,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 64,86,926/- (including the additional income of Rs. 14,59,600/-) 54,86,926/- Rs. 4,92,000/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide consolidated order for A.Ys. 2006-07 and 2007-08 dt.27.12.2018 upheld the levy of penalty. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds : "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Honorable CIT (A) - 5, Pune erred in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 6,45,0001- under section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 without appreciating the facts of the case and the legal position. The appellant hereby prays that the penalty levied under section 271 (1) (c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... may please be quashed and oblige. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Honorable CIT (A) - 5 Pune erred in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 6,45,000/- under section 271 (1 )(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 without appreciating the fact that a) The appellant has offered to tax the income declared during the course of Survey Action and the same has been accepted by the Income Tax Department. Therefore, is no difference in the Returned Income and the Income as assessed by the Income Tax Department b) The appellant has paid the entire tax on the additional income offered to tax during the course of survey action before the issue of notice u/s 148 of the I. T. Act. The appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se of Chetas Control Systems Pvt. Ltd., (ITA Nos.1241 to 1246/PUN/2016) order dated 06.03.2019. He also placed on record the copy of the aforesaid decision. Ld. D.R. on the other hand, supported the order of lower authorities. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present case is with respect to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is an undisputed fact that in the present case during the survey, assessee had admitted to disclose additional income of Rs. 19,10,720/- on account of bogus purchases. The perusal of statement recorded during the course of survey also reveals that it was stated that assessee firm had made actual purchases from the market for which it had received....