TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 1602
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner of Income Tax, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the Revenue) and the cross objector Shri Kumar Rasiklal Mehta (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) by filing the present appeals and cross objections sought to set aside the impugned order dated 20.12.2021 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] on the identical grounds except difference in amount of addition inter alia that: Revenue's grounds of appeal "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-48, Mumbai had erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 17,83,900/- Rs. 22,86,800/- & Rs. 10,89,000/for A.Y. 1997-98, 2006-07 & 2007-08 respectively ignoring the fact t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act AO proceeded to levy the penalty of Rs. 10,89,000/- Rs. 22,86,800/- & Rs. 17,83,900/- @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded for A.Y. 1997- 98, 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively. 4. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT (A) who has deleted the penalty by partly accepting the appeals filed by the assessee. Feeling aggrieved Revenue as well as assessee have come up before the Tribunal by way of filing appeals as well as cross objections. 5. We have heard the Ld. Authorised Representatives of the parties to the appeal, perused the orders passed by the Ld. Lower Revenue Authorities and documents available on record in the light of the facts and circumstances of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the basic requirement to levy penalty, (ii) tax of Rs. 39,94,250/-, on additional income offered, was paid on 31.10.2011 i.e., prior to the notice u/s 148 issued on 30.03.2012 (iii) additional income of Rs. 53,00,0007- was offered and included, by filling revised return of income on 12.04.2012 7.1 Looking to the above facts and circumstances, in my considered opinion, there is no reason for imposition of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act. Hence, the penalty of Rs. 17,83,900/- is deleted. Thus, grounds related to levy of penalty for A.Y. 2007-08 are allowed. 8. Since substantive ground related to levy of penalty is allowed in favour of the Appellant, other supportive grounds become academic ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... deleted too. Considering the facts of the case, penalty levied of amounting to Rs. 22,86,800/is directed to be deleted. The additional ground of appeal is rejected based on the same rational as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. 13. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant for AY 2006-07 is partly allowed (additional ground being rejected). III. CIT (A) Mumbai-30/3319/2015-16: A.Y. 1997-98 14. For A.Y. 1997-98 also, the appellant has made identical Grounds as that made in the preceding year AY 2007-08 as reproduced above. The issue involved is on similar lines. The appellant has also raised identical additional ground of appeal. 15. For the year under consideration i.e., A.Y. 1997-98, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be deleted." 8. Bare perusal of the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) goes to prove that in A.Y. 2007-08 Ld. CIT (A) deleted the addition on the grounds inter alia that during the year under consideration no addition has been made by the AO under section 143 read with section 147 of the Act; that tax of Rs. 39,94,250/- on additional income offered was paid on 31.01.2011 i.e. prior to the issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act and; that assessee has offered additional income of Rs. 53,00,000/- by filing revised return of income. In A.Y 2006-07 Ld. CIT (A) deleted the addition of Rs. 51,19,959/- made under section 69A of the Act on merits, hence no penalty is leviable. Similarly, in A.Y. 1997-98 the Ld. CI....