TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (6) TMI 295
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t to the search and seizure operation, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued a notice u/s.153A of the Act, dt.26-06-2008 for the AYs.2002-03 to 2007-08. The assessee filed his return of income on 09-09-2009, admitting total income of Rs. 50,49,197/-, but did not pay any taxes on the admitted income. The total self-assessment tax payable as per the return of income was Rs. 26,48,136/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed a revised computation of income. But the AO did not accept the same. 3. The assessee filed an appeal against the assessment order before the CIT(A), who accepted the revised computation of income and deleted the addition made by the AO. Meanwhile, the AO issued a notice u/s.221(1) of the Act for levy of penalty for non-payment of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was taken up for hearing on 02-06-2020 through video conferencing and both the parties were heard. 5. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee, reiterating the submissions made before the authorities below has drawn our attention to the decision of the CIT(A), Guntur, dt.15-06-2011 in the appeal against the assessment order, wherein in paras 3.3 to 4.2, the CIT(A) has held as under: "3.3. With regard to disallowance of Rs. 2,61,000/- on account of provisions made by the assessee against deficit cash. the appellant has submitted his explanation as under:- "The Assessing Officer has erred while disallowing the provisions amounting to Rs. 2,61,000/- without considering the information and explanations offered by the assessee. The l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessment, even though there was compliance the AO has drawn an adverse inference, though the appellant has explained the same. Since the decision of the AO is not based on the information furnished by the appellant in course of the s & s assessment proceedings, the addition made by the AO does not survive. In addition there is no finding of the AO that his decision is based on any finding or material found in course of the action under section 132(1) of the IT Act, 1961. In the circumstances, the AO is directed to delete the same. 4.1. With regard to second addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment u/s. 69 in M/s DNA Biotech Ltd., the appellant has submitted his explanation as under.- "....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he additions made by the AO. The Revenue has not filed any appeal against the order of CIT(A). Hence, the said order has become final. 5.3. The Learned Counsel for the assessee had drawn my attention to the provisions of Section 221(2) of the Act, which reads as under: "Section 221(2) Where as a result of any final order the amount of tax, with respect to the default in the payment of which the penalty was levied, has been wholly reduced, the penalty levied shall be cancelled and the amount of penalty paid shall be refunded". 5.4. In the case before this Tribunal, the final order of the CIT(A) has to be taken into consideration. 6. Though the Ld.DR supported the orders of the authorities below, I find that since the very a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be justified, so however, the same does not merit acceptance if one examines the issue in slight detail. Notably, the penalty envisaged Sec. 140A(3) in the unamended provision was on the statute alongwith the penalty envisaged u/s 221 of the Act. Once Sec. 140A(3) of the Act has been amended w.e.f. 01.04.1989, as we have seen earlier, there is no amendment of Sec. 221 of the Act and it continues to remain the same. What we are trying to emphasise is if the plea of the Revenue is to be accepted, based on the amendment to Sec. 140A(3) of the Act, it would mean that prior to 01.04.1989 the same default invited penal provisions under two sections, namely, Sec. 140A(3) as well as Sec. 221(1) of the Act, which would appear to be peculia....