TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 1662
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th the parties at length. Case file perused. 2. The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal : "The following grounds are taken without prejudice to each other - On facts and in law, 1. The Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of Rs. 44,07,916/- without appreciating that the penalty levied was invalid in law and hence, the same ought to have been deleted. 2. The assessee submits that the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of Rs.44,07,916/- is invalid in law since no proper satisfaction has been recorded in the notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and accordingly, the penalty order be declared null and void. 3. The Id. CIT(A) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....authorities have levied the impugned sec. 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs. 44,07,916/- on the assessee for the assessment year 2010-2011 in question. The same undisputedly relates to alleged on-money payment of Rs. 1,42,65,106/- made by the assessee-vendee to the searched party i.e., M/s. Tapadia group (vendor) in lieu of purchasing various parcels of land in real estate business. And that the search herein admittedly had been conducted on M/s. Geeta and Tapadia concerns on 06.06.2012. 4. It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A)'s orders u/sec.143(3) r.w.s. 147 assessment dated 27.03.2015 and 21.10.2016, respectively, had made the corresponding ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessment year 2010-2011 is not maintainable at this belated stage. He next made a strong endeavour to refer to the searched party's search statements recorded u/sec.132(4) of the Act that the same had formed sufficient material for the department for not only making the quantum addition herein but also levying the consequential penalty in light of sec.271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. We have heard both the parties at length. The first and foremost question that arises for our apt adjudication is - as to whether the assessee could challenge taxability of the impugned alleged on-money payment of Rs.1,42,65,106/- in assessment year 2010-2011 itself or not ? We find that this tribunal's coordinate bench's order in group of appeals ITA.Nos.804 to 8....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mplete development of the land owned by assessee and therefore, there is substantial force in the plea of the assessee that the on date of entering of MOU i.e. 26.03.1999, an event of 'transfer' within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the Act has taken place and therefore the capital gain is liable to be taxed in assessment year 1999-2000. We are conscious that the present proceedings are not in relation to substantive taxation of the impugned amounts but the aforesaid proposition is being considered only to examine whether legally speaking is there justification in the plea of the assessee that the taxability of the impugned capital gain was not legally conclusive in the manner made by the Assessing Officer and that in the eyes of law, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e CIT(A) made no mistake in deleting the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer with respect to the income by way of Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 30,12,878/- on sale of land. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) is affirmed and the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 771/PN/2012 is dismissed." 6.1. It is thus clear that nothing prevents the assessee from challenging correctness of the impugned penalty proceedings regarding taxability of the quantum addition in the corresponding assessment year. This is indeed restricted to the penalty proceedings only. We keep in mind this fine distinction and proceed to note that there is no seized material pinpointing the assessee having paid the impugned on-money component of Rs. 1,42,65,106/- in asse....