2024 (2) TMI 632

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and derives income from salary. He filed his return of income on 30.05.2016 declaring total income of Rs. 15,58,070/-. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the I.T. Act was conducted in the case of M/s. Aurora Educational Society & Others group in which the assessee was also covered. In response to notice u/s 153A, the assessee filed his return of income admitting total income of Rs. 70,78,070/-. 4. The Assessing Officer observed that during the course of search & seizure in the residential premises of the assessee, a red diary (Mahavir Collection Book) was found and seized vide Annexure A/KKA/RES/02. At ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vied by the Assessing Officer by observing as under: 7. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that pursuant to the search & seizure operation conducted u/s 132 of the I.T. Act, the assessee was given notice u/s 153A in response to which the assessee filed the return of income which was accepted as such by the Assessing Officer and therefore, no penalty is leviable since the returned income has been accepted. Referring to the provisions of section 153A/153C of the Act the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the return of income filed in response to notice u/s 153C of the Act is to be considered as return filed u/s 139 of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the learned CIT (A) is not in accordance with law and therefore, the same should be deleted. 10. The learned DR, on the other hand, strongly supported the order of the learned CIT (A). Referring to the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sarita Kaur Manjeet Singh Chopra vs. Income Tax Officer reported in 174 TTJ 516 (Pune Trib.) and the decision of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. J. Mythili reported in (2014) 149 ITD 275 (Chennai Trib.) she submitted that in view of the specific provision of Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, penalty was rightly levied by the Assessing Officer and rightly sustained by the learned CIT (A). She submitted....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ction 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act levied penalty of Rs. 17,056,680/- which has been upheld by the learned CIT (A). 12. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT (A) on this issue. The provisions of Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act have already been reproduced by the learned CIT (A), therefore, we are not reproducing the same. The above provisions are squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case. We find an identical issue has been considered by the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sarita Kaur Manjeet Singh Chopra vs. Income Tax Officer (Supra) wherein the Tribunal after considering the various decisions has held as under: 13. Similar view has been taken in the various other decisions re....