2025 (8) TMI 1334

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....amount of Rs. 98,20,000/- (however it should have been Rs. 92,00,000/-) which was surrendered by the assessee in his return of income filed u/s. 153A. 2. The brief facts of the case are that AO made the additions vide his order dated 20.12.2016 passed u/s. 153A/143(3) of the Act and assessed the income at Rs. 97,33,69,570/- and initiated the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Further, during the year under consideration, the assessee has surrendered Rs. 41,80,000/- and Rs. 50,20,000/- which is declared in the return of income, by initiating the penalty u/s. 271AAB of the Act. Later on, AO imposed the penalty vide order dated 31.3.2019 u/s. 271AAB of the Act and also imposed penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In appeal Ld. CIT(A) deleted th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....A) has deleted the penalty u/s. 271AAB and initiated penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) in respect of surrendered amount of Rs. 92,00,000./- It is further observed from the page no. 31-32 of the paper book that the copy of notice dated 16.10.2019 issued by the CIT(A) was for initiation of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In view of the above, the jurisdiction u/s. 271(1)(c) assumed by the CIT(A) is not in accordance with law and notice u/s. 271(1)(c) so issued by CIT(A) is also not in accordance with law, hence, the same quashed. To support our aforesaid view, we draw our support from the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Neeraj Jindal (2017) 393 ITR 1 (Del. HC) wherein, it has been observed as under:- "Section 271(1)....