TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 1294
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the facts involved therein are similar, all these appeals are being disposed of by way of this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. First of all, we would like to take up ITA No. 5123/Del/2017 for the assessment year 2008-09, wherein, the assessee has taken following grounds of appeal : "1. That the Ld. CIT(Appeal) has erred in upholding the penalty of Rs. 4,01,258/-, imposed by the A.O., invoking the provisions of sec. 271(1)(c) of IT Act 1961. 2. That the Ld. CIT(Appeal) has erred in upholding the penalty of Rs. 4,01,258/-,, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and relying on irrelevant judicial pronouncements. 3. That the impugned appellate order is arbitrary, illega....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment u/s. 153A of the Act was completed on 20.06.2014 at an income of Rs. 1,63,02,586/- by making following additions : (i) Rs. 1,48,56,880/- on account of unexplained cash credit on protective basis. (ii) Rs. 4,45,706/- on account of unexplained expenditure (iii) Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of additional income declared before the Settlement Commission. 5. In quantum appeal, filed by assessee before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) reduced the addition on account of unexplained cash credit to Rs. 1,50,000/- and unexplained expenditure to Rs. 1,48,569/-. However, the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- made on account of additional income declared before the Settlement Commission was confirmed. Thus, the total additions s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....closed the above income" ( emphasis provided), This is nothing but stating, in a different way, that the appellant has concealed its income. No doubt, the exact phrase has not been used, but is necessary to look into the intent, rather than the exact words. The intent should be discernible from the assessment order. There is yet another addition on which penalty has been levied, but no explanation adduced on merits, viz., the unexplained cash credit amount , which has not been included in the disclosure made before the Settlement commission in the hands of the flagship companies of the Rockland group. The A.O. has in fact, while dealing with this matter, specifically mentioned that penalty provisions of Sec 271(1)(c) are attracted as the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....10.2020 of coordinate Bench in the case of Akhil Meditech (ITA No. 5118/Del/2017), wherein, in the similar facts and circumstances, wherein Akhil Meditech was also subjected to the same search and seizure, and ITAT quashed the penalty proceedings and deleted the penalty imposed against the assessee with the following observations : "6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Learned Counsel for the Assessee referred to the show cause notices issued by A.O. before levy of the penalty Dated 20.06.2014, the same are bad in Law as it did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Supreme Court of India in SLP No.11485 of 2016 by order dated 5th August, 2016. 22. On this issue again this Court is unable to find any error having been committed by the ITAT. No substantial question of law arises." 6.1. In view of the above, since the issue of notice itself is bad in Law, therefore, it vitiate the entire penalty proceedings and as such, the penalty proceedings are liable to be quashed. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the Orders of the authorities below and quash the penalty proceedings and delete the penalties in all the appeals. In view of the above, there is no need to decide the remaining issues involved in the appeals. All the appeals of the Assessee are allowed." Thus, in party wi....