TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 471
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s] passed under Section 251(1) of the Act in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case. 2. The appellant denies herself liable to a penalty of Rs. 38,69,110/- under section 271(1)(c) on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The notice issued under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The impugned order of penalty passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 is without assumption of proper jurisdiction, as the notice for initiating penalty was erroneous and consequently all actions pursuant to a defective notice was bad in law, on the facts an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evy of penalty and therefore the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act requires to be cancelled on the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that, the penalty was not automatic and that there was a discretion not to levy penalty and the assessing officer ought to have exercised the discretion and the penalty proceedings are not to be resorted to as a matter of procedure, on the facts and circumstance of the case. 11. The learned CIT(A) ought to have noticed that, the assessing officer has further failed to appreciate the fact that the penalty proceedings are independent to that of the assessment proceedings under the facts and circumstances of the case. 12. Withou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....minating document, the assessee and her husband admitted in statement under section 132 (4) that, the actual sale consideration received was Rs. 3.5 crore and it was agreed that, she and her husband would pay tax on the difference in short term capital gains of Rs. 2.5 crore. Consequently, in the return filed under section 153C after the search, assessee declared capital gain by showing the sale consideration as Rs. 1.75 crore being 50% of her share in the true sale consideration. The Ld.AO held that assessee concealed income that is sale consideration received by her on the sale of land in the original return filed. 4. The Ld.AO also noted that the assessee declared interest on saving bank account amounting to Rs. 21,396/- which was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l income in the return of income filed against notice u/s 153C and paid taxes only after the search operation u/s 132. The assessee did not prefer any appeal against the assessment order. In the assessment u/s 153C, the AG had clearly given a finding of concealment of income for initiating penalty proceedings. The AR appeared before the AG during the penalty proceedings and never raised the issue of validity of notice. The, penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) is based on proper satisfaction of AG in the assessment order and after due consideration of submissions made by the AR. Hence, I feel that the penalty levied by AG is properly initiated and levied. Hence, the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) passed by the AG is in accordance with law. Therefore, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....O deserves to be upheld. 11. We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. 12. Admittedly, the assessee offered additional income during the search and has paid taxes on the same. It is also noted that no addition has been made by the Ld.AO on such income offered by assessee and has been accepted by the revenue. We note that, while passing the assessment order the Ld.AO recorded satisfaction in respect of concealment towards the additional income offered by assessee based on the seized material. The notice issued under section 274 of the Act is for both the limbs being filing of inaccurate particulars of income as well as concealment. On a careful perusal of the penalty order passed by the Ld....