2022 (12) TMI 35

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... order dropping penalty [for short "PO"] dt. 29/04/2016 passed by the DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Pune [for short "AO"] u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. To advance the matter for adjudication, it is essential to reproduce grounds challenged by the appellant as under; "1. The learned (ld) Pr. CIT erred in passing the impugned order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), on the basis of his erroneous observation that the Assessing Officer (AO) had dropped the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the AY 2008-09, without application of mind, particularly without consideration of the implication of Explanation 5A to section 271(1) of the Act. 2. The Pr. CIT has failed to appreciate that th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....onically narrated facts of the case are; 4.1 The appellant is an individual engaged in the business of builder & developers and the key person of Gera Group, upon whom a search u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on 11/09/2014 and from the seized material the appellant found received a cash of Rs.104.76Lakhs from undisclosed which the assessee admitted as his income from undisclosed sources and offered to tax during the course of reassessment proceedings u/s 143 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, consequent to which penal provision u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was triggered. 4.2 During the penal proceedings, the assessee was put to show cause notice [for short "SCN"] dt. 30/10/2015 and considering the written submission dt. 22/03/2016, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... lined order of the Ld. AO and contented that, non-application is also simulated in the order dropping penalty, hence for the reason the revisionary jurisdiction is validly triggered, which may be sustained. 6. After hearing to rival contentions of both the parties; and subject to the provisions of rule 18 ITAT, Rules perused the copy of SCN issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c), case laws relied upon by the appellant as well the respondent and duly considered the facts of the case in the light of settled legal position forewarned to either parties. 7. In the extant appeal, considering the facts of the case extenso, it is apparently palpable from page 11- 14 of the paper book that, the appellant in his written reply dt. 22/02/2016 to impugn....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....enuity is exhausted". To do so, is ". . . to divide one argument into two and to multiply the litigation". (Emphasis supplied) 9. Considering the facts of the case in nutshell, we concede with the contention of the Ld. AR that, in support of appellant claim as expounded hereinbefore at para 7, there was indeed unvarying and indistinguishable material placed before Ld. TAB during the course of penalty proceedings vis-à-vis revisionary proceeding, which in turn demonstrates that, the Ld. AO after carrying out an inquiry with respect to eligibility of appellants claim, basis of claim and compliance relating thereto (if any) has then culminated the penal proceedings taking one of the plausible view in the light of settled legal pos....