2018 (7) TMI 2033
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "IT Act"), the Revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeal with the following proposed question of law. "Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting of penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the specific provisions contained in Section 275(1A) of the IT Act?" 2. The facts leading to the present Tax Appeal in nut-shell are as under: 2.1 That a search was conducted on 08.12.2009 at the residential premises of one Shri Somabhai Ambalal Prajapati, Ahmedabad. On the basis of the documents, evidences and other material seized during the course of search, the searched pers....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alty order, nobody remained present and no reply was filed. That thereafter considering the fact that the assessee did not file the return of income and has concealed the income which was declared and offered for capital gain only when the notice under Section 148 of the IT Act was issued, the Assessing Officer imposed the penalty of Rs. 20,32,218/-levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 2.2 The penalty order was challenged by the assessee before the learned CIT (A). It was pointed out that earlier when the notice under Section 148 of the IT Act and assessment proceeding was initiated, the Assessing Officer also issued the penalty notice which was replied by the assessee and thereafter considering the reply filed by the assessee, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... specific provisions contained in section 275(1A) of the IT act. 3.1 It is submitted by Mrs. Bhatt, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue that as such considering section 275(1A) of the IT Act, the Assessing Officer was very much within its jurisdiction to pass the order imposing penalty even though he had earlier dropped the penalty proceedings on the basis of the assessment as required by giving effect to the order of Commissioner (Appeals). 3.2 It is submitted by Mrs. Bhatt, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue that in the present case the order of assessment was challenged by the assessee before the learned CIT (A) and the learned CIT (A) confirmed the assessment order and therefore, thereafter when the pena....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....271(1)(c) of the IT Act was issued on 26.10.2012. It is not in dispute that in response to the penalty notice dated 26.10.2012, the assessee filed the reply vide letter dated 24.03.2013. The Assessing Officer after considering the assessee's reply, passed an order dated 28.03.2013 dropping the penalty proceedings which read as under: "DROPPING PROCEEDING INITIATED UNDER SECTION 271F OF THE IT ACT, 1961 In view of the reply dated 24.03.2013, the penalty proceedings initiated u/s.271(1)(c) in the above case for A.Y. 2006-07 is hereby dropped." 4.1 It appears that against the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT (A) determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 62,15,820/-. The said appeal came to be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alty proceedings were initiated. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, reliance placed upon section 275(1A) of the IT Act is absolutely misplaced. Section 275(1A) of the IT Act reads as under: "In a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject-matter of an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 246 or section 246A or an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under section 253 or an appeal to the High Court under section 260A or an appeal to the Supreme Court under section 261 or revision under section 263 or section 264 and an order imposing or enhancing or reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the imposition of penalty is passed before the order of the Commissioner (Appe....