TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1265
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the A.Y. 2015-16 and 2016- 17 respectively. Since these appeals relating to same assessee and are involving common issues, therefore, these are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of brevity and convenience. We would first take up the appeal ITA No. 419/GTY/2025 for the A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The only issue raised by the assessee in the various grounds of appeal is against the order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the penalty of Rs. 1,01,25,099/- as imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) on account of concealment of particulars of income. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g Officer imposing penalty before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer by observing that had there been no search on the assessee, the assessee would not have disclosed the income in the return filed under Section 153A of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. It is undisputed fact as culling out of the records that a search action under Section 132(1) of the Act was conducted on the assessee on 20/09/2019 and thereafter the assessee filed return of income under Section 153A of the Act in compliance to notice issued under Section 153A. The assessee disclosed income o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... requiring the assessee to file return of income under Section 153A of the Act would become otiose and redundant which is not the spirit of the statute. In our opinion, once the income declared by the assessee in the return filed under Section 153A of the Act is accepted then the Assessing Officer has no locus-standi to impose penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Neeraj Jindal reported in (2017) 393 ITR 0001 (Delhi) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held as under: "Thus, it is clear that when the Assessing Officer has accepted the revised return filed by the assessee under section 1534. no occasion ari....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....offer a higher amount unless he was promised some reciprocal benefits like not being visited by penalty. Thus, it was held where additions have been made based on assessee's own offerings, penalty provision shall not lie. 7. Even otherwise, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer is not maintainable as the impugned assessment is unabated on the date of search and there was no incriminating material found by the search team during the course of search qua the amounts offered by the assessee voluntarily and gratuitously. The assessee was not bound to offer these income in the return filed under Section 153A of the Act, however, in order to buy peace of mind, the said disclosure was made. It is trite law as settled by the Hon'ble Su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was entrusted with the job to comply with the notices/orders received from the Income Tax department and bring the same to the appellant did not inform the assessee. Further the accountant of the assessee resigned from the office on 01/03/2024. The appellant became aware of the penalty order having been passed after receipt of recovery of demand letter dated 17/02/2025 stating therein that outstanding demand of Rs. 7,18,933/- for the A.Y. 2015-16. Thereafter, steps were taken to file appeal and accordingly, the appeal was filed with the delay of 1028 days. After taking into the reasons cited by the ld. counsel for the assessee, we are of the view that the reasons to be genuine and bona fide. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by ....