TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 832
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... common order. 2. We shall first take up assessment year 2006-07. Grounds of Appeal (A.Y. 2006-07) "1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the Penalty of Rs.36,320/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing of appeal." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 22-03-2007 declaring total income at Rs. 16,20,430/-. During the course of survey proceedings under section 133A of the Act, it was noticed that the assessee is also carrying out transport business in the name of M/s Chandan Carrier. On en....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Rs. 1,07,890/- was again made by the AO in the hands of the assessee and he further proceeded to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealing the particulars of income of Rs. 1,07,890/- received by the assessee from M/s Chandan Carrier (a business which was effectively owned by the assessee). 4. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, with the following observations: "4.1. The sole ground of appeal is related to the imposition of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.36,320/-. A survey u/s 133A of the Act was carried out in this case. During the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee was not only authorized signatory but also mandate holder of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... before us the assessment order in the case of Shri Nilesh Shah (proprietor M/s Chandan Carrier) for assessment year 2006-07 and submitted that the said income which is sought to be taxed in the hands of the assessee has already being assessed in the name of Shri Nilesh Shah as proprietor of M/s Chandan Carrier. He further produced copy of return of income of Shri Nilesh Shah for assessment year 2007-08 as well and the intimation passed under section 143(1) of the Act accepting the return of income filed by Shri Nilesh Shah. Accordingly, the counsel for the assessee submitted that the aforesaid income has already been accounted for in the return of income for Shri Nilesh Shah (as proprietor of M/s Chandan Carrier) and hence there is no caus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... observations: However, when the issue is raised in penalty proceedings, the factum of the very same income having been offered to tax by different entity and having been taxed substantially in the hands of other entity becomes a relevant factor for determining whether the assessee has concealed the said income or furnished inaccurate particulars regarding the said income which has already been taxed after being shown in the hands of different entity, namely, other than the assessee. The Court does not intend to convey that in each and every case, in such circumstances, no penalty is leviable at all, but such fact has to be treated as a relevant factor for arriving at a decision .... 6.1 Now coming to the instant facts, we observe that ....