TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 1052
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee is an individual stated to be having income from interest and other sources. The A.O. has noted that a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was carried-out on Mr. Bhushan Lal Sawhney and other group cases on 28.07.2011. Consequently, notice under section 153A of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 16.05.2012 was issued to the assessee asking her to file the return of income for the A.Y. 2006-07. In response to the aforesaid notice, assessee filed her return of income for the A.Y. 2006- 07 on 07.06.2012 declaring an income of Rs.9,56,805/-. The case was taken-up for scrutiny. Thereafter, assessment was framed under section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 vide order dated 02.03.2015 and the total income determined by the A.O. was at Rs.9,28,10,980/-. 3.1. Aggrieved by the order of the A.O. assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 25.10.2016 in Appeal Number 691/14- 15/29/16-17 dismissed the appeal of assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal and has raised the following grounds : 1. "That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dition of alleged peak balance of Rs.9,18,54,176/- on protective basis is liable to be deleted as the same has not been shown to be credited during the AY 2006-07. Aspect of opening balance has not been considered. Refer 301 ITR 404 (Raj) CIT vs Parmeshwar Bohra. 3.4. That the said addition as made of Rs 9,18,54,176/- on protective basis is not sustainable as the Ld. AO has not specified the provisions of the Act under which such addition is made. 3.5. That the assessments being complete u/s 143(3) or 143(1) there was no jurisdiction to make the assessment u/s 153A nor to make the addition as made therein as no incriminating material was unearthed during the course of search. As such, the addition is liable to be deleted. Refer 380 ITR 573 CIT (Central 3) Vs. Kabul Chawla. 4. That the addition as made and sustained results in double taxation. The same alleged addition has been made on substantive basis in the hands of the Appellant's husband. Double taxation and double addition of the same alleged amount is not permissible under the Act. Refer 118 ITR 50 (SC) State of UP & Others Vs. Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd., 262 ITR 500(Raj.) CIT Vs. Taj Oil Traders. 5. That the said....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in her return of income. The A.O. has tabulated month-wise balance in the account at para-5.4 of the assessment order and noted that the maximum outstanding balance in January, 2006 was at US Dollars $20,43,474 equivalent to Rs.9,18,54,176/- which was not disclosed in the income tax return of the assessee. The A.O. noted that the amount US Dollars at $20,43,474 was assessed in the hands of Mr. Bushan Lal Sawhney, husband of the assessee on substantive basis and protective assessment of the same amount was made in the hands of the assessee viz., Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney. Further, on the aforesaid addition the A.O. also levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The order of A.O. on quantum and penalty was upheld by Ld. CIT(A). Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before us. 6. Before us, at the outset, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the addition of the same amount was made in the hands of the husband of the assessee by order dated 02.03.2015 passed under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and the Ld. CIT(A) had confirmed the addition made by the A.O. in the case of husband of the assessee Mr. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on against the assessee. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs., Kabul Chawla (supra) held as under : "vii. Completed assessments can be interfered with by the A.O. while making the assessment under section 153A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment" 8.2. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its recent decision in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia (supra) in paras 69 to 72 has held as under : "69. What weighed with the Court in the above decision was the "habitual concealing of income and indulging in clandestine operations" and that a person indulging in such activities "can hardly be accepted to maintain meticulous books or records for long." These factors are absent in the present case. There was no justification at all for the AO to proceed on surmises and estimates without there being any incriminating material qua the AY for which he sought to make additions of franchisee commission. 70. The above distinguishi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e A.Ys. 2007-08 to 2011-12, respectfully following the aforesaid order of the Tribunal dated 01.06.2021 (supra) and the decision taken by us in the quantum appeal in ITA.No.413/Del./2017 for the A.Y. 2006-07 in the case of assessee hereinabove, we allow the quantum appeals for the A.Ys. 2007-08 to 2011-12. 9. In the result, ITA.Nos.413 to 418/Del./2017 for the A.Ys. 2006-07 to 2011-12 are allowed. ITA.Nos.420, 421, 422, 423, 424 & 425/Del./2017 : A.Ys. 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 : 10. In all these appeals, assessee challenged the levy of the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 in all the assessment years under appeals i.e., 2006-2007 to 2011-2012. 11. Learned Counsel for the Assessee has placed on record copy of the notice issued by A.O. under section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 Dated 02.03.2015 issued by the A.O. before levy of the penalty for assessment years under appeals in which the A.O. has mentioned "have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income". He has, therefore, submitted that A.O. was not sure as to for which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T....