2023 (5) TMI 211

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cts are, the Assessee is a resident individual stated to be carrying on business in trading of auto parts. For the assessment years under dispute, Assessee had filed original returns of income in regular course declaring total income of Rs.4,70,590/- and Rs.11,96,610/- respectively, for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2011-12. Subsequently, a search and seizure operation was conducted on the Assessee on 09.10.2013. In pursuance to the search and seizure operation, proceedings u/s. 153A were initiated against the Assessee. In response to the notices issued u/s. 153A of the Income Tax Act, the Assessee filed returns of income revising total income to Rs.3,44,36,586/- and Rs.82,90,606/- for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2011-12 respectivel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed, in the assessment order, Assessing Officer has not referred to any incriminating material found during the search and seizure operation indicating concealment of income by the Assessee. He submitted, since there was nothing adverse against the Assessee, the Assessing Officer accepted the income declared in the revised returns of income. Thus, he submitted, the provisions of section 271(1)(c) is not applicable. Finally, he submitted, while deciding Assessee's appeal on levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act under identical facts and circumstances in assessment year 2010-11, the Tribunal has deleted the penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In this regard, he drew our attention to order dated 08.03.2019 passed in ITA No. 4707/Del/....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ty. The penalty order also does not specifically indicate the exact limb under which the Assessing Officer imposed penalty. Thus, the aforesaid facts clearly indicate non-application of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer while imposing penalty. Even otherwise also, the Assessing Officer has not established on record that either there is concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the Assessee. This is so because, neither he has referred to any incriminating material found as a result of search indicating concealment of income by the Assessee nor there is any adverse inference drawn by the Assessing Officer in the assessment orders resulting in variation in income declared by the Assessee. Thus, in our v....