AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 1060
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Krishna Nagar, Coimbatore-641 028. [PAN: ADJPA9492L] DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1065128064(1) dated 25.05.2024 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore 2 ITA No. 2030/Chny/2024 2013-14 DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1065128474(1) dated 25.05.2024, 3 ITA No. 2031/Chny/2024 2014-15 DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1065128554(1) dated 25.05.2024 2.0 At the outset, it is to be noted that the appellant had requested for filing of additional grounds of appeal on 21.11.2024 that the impugned penalty orders contested vide the aforementioned appeals have actually passed beyond the permissible timelines and deserved to be quashed. The Ld. DR vehemently objected to fili....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er considering the directions of the superior appellate authorities, the Ld. AO finally quantified the addition at Rs. 12,97,824/- vide his order dated 27.09.2019. This final quantum addition has admittedly not been contested by the appellant any further. There after the Ld. AO proceeded with pending penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and after considering assessee's reply levied a penalty of Rs. 4,01,027/-. 5.0 We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material available on records. Before us the Ld.Counsel argued that the quantification made by the Ld. AO is not correct. It was also submitted that the quantum addition was not contested because of small amount of tax involved therein. The Ld. Counsel however failed to answer as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lty we are of the view that as the quantum addition on undisclosed rental income has not been contested by the appellant and rather admitted, the consequent penalty cannot be challenged. We do not find any force in the argument of the Ld. Counsel that the quantum order was not challenged because of smallness of tax involved. Quantum of tax is not material it is the conduct of the assessee which is at the top consideration. The impugned concealed or undisclosed rental income was detected on account of search proceedings and the same has been accepted by the assessee qua the assessment order. The penalty order which follows the quantum addition therefore is a natural corollary. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n para 5.1 of the order dated 25.05.2024 of Ld.CIT(A) passed vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1065128474(1), this tribunal vide its order ITA No. 425-431/2016-17 dated 13.06.2018 had confirmed the additions of Rs. 49,51,362/- and Rs. 1,87,75,583/- for AY-2013-14 and AY 2014-15 in respect of the under statement of income. Nothing has been brought on record that there was any contest against this order by the assessee. Thus, the order of the Hon'ble Coordinate bench became final on the quantum addition of impugned under statement of income. Within the meanings of section 275(1)(a) the revenue was required to conclude penalty proceedings qua the quantum addition of impugned under statement of income within six months from the end of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nancial year FY-2018-19 that is by 31.03.2019, the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) was required to be passed on or before 30.09.2019. It is also an undisputed fact on record that the penalty order levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) qua addition of Rs. 49,51,362/- and Rs. 1,87,75,583/- for AY-2013-14 and AY 2014-15 was passed on 25.10.2021. Accordingly, it is abundantly clear that the penalty order dated 25.10.2021 has been hit by limitation prescribed in section 275(1)(a) and cannot survive. Accordingly, the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) dated 25.10.2021 for AY-2013-14 and AY 2014-15 qua addition of Rs. 49,51,362/- and Rs. 1,87,75,583/- in respect of under statement of income is quashed. The order of lower authorities on the issue set aside and the Ld....