TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 867
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as raised following grounds of appeal: 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding penalty of Rs. 19,234/-levied u/s 271(1)(c) without properly appreciating the facts of the appellant. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law on facts in not considering the submission dated 18.8.2015 and the decision of ITAT Delhi relied upon by the assessee in the case of Prem Arora and Pawenkumar Gupta and ignoring the fact that return income in response to notice u/s 153A is the assessed income u/s 153A(1)(b). 3. On the facts no such penalty u/s 271(1)(c) ought to have been levied. 4. The appellant craves leave to add to alter and/or to modify any ground of appeal. 3. The only effective ground is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2662/A/2017,2669, 2670,2671/A/2017 A.Y.2009-10, 2010-11 and 2012-13 , ITA No.2663 to 2668/A/2017 Asstt.years 2007-08 to 2012-13 dtd.08/04/2019- In this case, the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Neeraj Jindal mentioned above and decision of ITAT Rajkot Bench in case of Mansukhbhai R.Sorathia & Others IT(SS)(A.No.46/RJT/2014 were referred to and penalties were deleted. 4. Ld. D.R. opposed these submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. 5. In rejoinder, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. 6. I have heard the rival submissions, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The Division benc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... view of specific provision of section 153A of the I.T. Act, the return of income filed in response to notice under section 153(a) of the I.T. Act is to be considered as return filed under section 139 of the Act, as the Assessing Officer has made assessment on the said return and therefore, the return is to be considered for the purpose of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act and the penalty is to be levied on the income assessed over and above the income returned under section 153A, if any. 8. Further, reliance is placed on the judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Principal CIT-19 Vs. Neeraj Jindal (2017) 79 taxmann.com 96 (Delhi). The Hon'ble High Court has decided the issue as follows: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a complete code for postsearch assessments. Considering that the non-obstante clause under Section. !53A^excludes the application of, inter alia, Section 139, it is clear that the revised return filed under Section 153A takes the place of the original return under Section 139, for the purposes of all other provisions of the Act. This is further buttressed by Section 1 53 A ( 1 )(a) which reads: "Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....c) without properly appreciating the facts of the appellant. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not considering the submission dated 18.8.2015 and the decision of ITAT Delhi relied upon by the assessee in the case of Prem Arora and Pawerkumar Gupta and ignoring the fact that return income in response to notice u/s 153A is the assessed income u/s 153A(1)(b). 3. On the facts no such penalty u/s 271(1)(c) ought to have been levied. 4. The appellant craves leave to add to alter and/or to modify any ground of appeal. 11. The facts and circumstances in this case are identical as were in that of ITA No.526/Ahd/2018 for the A.Y. 2012-13. Respective representatives have adopted the same argument as w....