TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 1571
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appeal in ITA No. 5715/Del/2015 in the case of Smt. Deepika Bhalla. The grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to the confirmation of penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 4. Facts of the case in brief are that a search and seizure operation was conducted at Manav Rachna Education Society of cases on 04.08.2005. Accordingly, the residential premises of the assessee were also searched on the said date, as the husband of the assessee was the trustee in the said society. During the course of search operation, certain documents were seized from the residential premises of Sh. O. P. Bhalla father-in-law of the assessee. A jewellery valuing Rs. 11,06,711/- was fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....axable income for the assessment year 2006-07 as unexplained investment u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act. I am satisfied that the assessee has concealed/furnishing inaccurate particulars of her income to the extent of Rs. 5,57,375/-. The provisions of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are clearly attracts on this addition of Rs. 5,57,375/-. Income Declared in the return 5,63,810 Addition as discussed above 1,23,000 Addition as discussed 5,57,375 Total taxable income 12,44,185 Assessed: Issue necessary forms. Charge interest u/s 234B & 234C of IT Act. Issue penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act for concealing/wrong/inaccurate particulars of income of Rs. 6,80,375/- (1,23,000 + 5,57,375)" 5. The as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld jewellery may be held to be justified. Thus with regard to jewellery amounting Rs. 2,00,000/-, the appellant has not been able to offer any explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the jewellery or the explanation offered by the appellant is not satisfactory and this jewellery is deemed income of the appellant. (iv) The explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act thus would apply against the assessee for levy of penalty and it would be a case of deemed concealment of the particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In view of the above, the AO was justified in imposing penalty. However, the AO is directed to restrict penalty on undisclosed investment in jewellery at Rs. 2,00,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome sustained up to the level of the ITAT was the concealed income of the assessee and the penalty was righty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act which has been sustained by the ld. CIT(A). 9. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) sustained the penalty in respect of the estimated addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- which was restricted by the ITAT by observing in para 11 of the order dated 31.03.2011 in ITA No. 550/Del/2010 which read as under: "11. In our view, in the given facts and circumstances, i.e. VDIS declaration and assessee search statement at the most, the diamonds which are studded in t....