2015 (6) TMI 1199

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....have common ground, they were heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The common ground in all these appeals is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the levy of penalty by the Assessing Officer made u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The common facts in all these appeals are that a search was conducted u/s. 132 in the case of Shikhir Vir Agarwal and his group of companies including the assessee under consideration on 03/03/2008. During the course of search operations and in the statement made u/s.132(4) of the Act, assessee offered total additional undisclosed income of Rs. 9 crores in the entire group. Out of Rs. 9 crores declaration made on 03/03/2008, income of Rs. 4,61,00,000/- was of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ous decisions which are incorporated in the penalty order, the Assessing Officer finally concluded that it is a fit case for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and accordingly, proceeded by levying the penalty. 4. Aggrieved by this, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld.CIT(A). It was strongly contended that satisfaction of the Assessing Officer in the order of the assessment is a prerequisite condition for invoking the penalty proceedings. The Assessing Officer has not recorded his satisfaction. Therefore, in the absence of any proper reason being recorded by the Assessing Officer, order of penalty lacks application of mind. Relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ms. Madhushree Gupta vs. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....SC). In this case, the assessee had originally filed return showing meager income. When, after action u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, notice u/s. 148 was served on him, he filed revised returns showing higher income. Eventually assessment orders were passed. Ii penalty proceedings under section 271, the assessee claimed that he had offered additional income to buy peace of mind and avoid litigation. Penalty orders were passed and the commissioner (A) confirmed the orders. But the Appellate Tribunal held that the Department had not discharged its burden of proving of concealment and had simply rested its conclusion on the Act of Voluntary surrender done by the assessee in good faith, and that penalty could not be levied. On a reference....