2024 (7) TMI 898

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 Ld. AO u/s 271(1)(c) in all these years vide separate orders dated 30.03.2022. It is admitted position that facts as well as issues are quite identical in all the years and our adjudication in any one year shall equally apply to the other years also. First, we take up appeal for AY 2010-11 wherein the assessee has challenged the impugned penalty on legal grounds as well as on merits. 2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments and explained the chronology of events. The Ld. AR assailed impugned penalty on legal grounds as well as on merits. During the course of hearing, Ld. AR referred to various decisions to support the argument that in the absences of specific charge in the show-cause notice, the impugned penalty would be bad-in-law. On mer....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income. During penalty proceedings, a show-cause notice was issued to the assessee on 31.03.2015. In the absence of any reply, another notice was issued on 05.05.2015. The assessee again failed to respond to this notice. 3.2 In the meanwhile, the quantum addition were partly deleted by first appellate authority vide order dated 31.10.2017. The partial relief was granted considering the remand report of Ld. AO wherein Ld. AO suggested certain relief to the assessee. Consequently, the assessee got substantial relief to the tune of Rs. 140.24 Lacs and his income was re-determined at Rs. 49.80 Lacs. 3.3 The assessee preferred further appeal before Tribunal but sought to settle the demand under DTVsVs Schem....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f income and accordingly, levied penalty of Rs. 11.64 Lacs. 3.6 The assessee preferred further appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which was disposed-off on 21.11.2023 i.e., after the order passed by Tribunal in quantum appeal on 12.05.2023. The assessee contended that no penalty could be levied on estimated additions. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT vs. P Rojes (356 ITR 703 / 31 Taxmann.com 253). However, Ld. CIT(A) held that it was a case of suppression of business receipts as found during survey. The additions were on the basis of impounded material. Therefore, Ld. AO rightly levied penalty for concealment of income which resulted out of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. However,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Ld. AO levied penalty on the addition. However, the penalty was deleted by the Tribunal. The Hon'ble Court observed that no penalty could be levied on estimation of income. It was further held by Hon'ble Court that the Tribunal rightly found that the present case was not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 27(1)(c) by finding that the initial impression of the Assessing Officer was incorrect with regard to the deposit. The Hon'ble Court also referred to the decision in Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158/189 Taxman 322 (SC) in which it was observed that in order to bring the case u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, there has to be concealment of particulars of the income of the assessee and the assessee must have furnished inaccurate....