TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 545
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....suant to search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") and survey action u/s 133A of the Act in the case of Gedia Group wherein the assessee's residential premises and bank lockers were also covered, notice u/s 153A was issued to the assessee and thereafter, the assessment proceedings were completed u/s 143(3) read with section 153A, dated 30th Nov. 2011 wherein the Assessing Officer brought to tax a sum of Rs. 4,88,080/- as unexplained money in respect of undisclosed bank accounts of the assessee and an amount of Rs. 1,80,85,800/- was brought to tax as unexplained cash loans u/s 69A of the Act and interest thereon of Rs. 5,67,429/- was also brought to tax under the head "income from other sources" and penalty pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o penalty can be levied beyond 31st of March, 2015 as per the proviso to section 275(1)(a) of the Act and given that, in the instant case, the penalty order has been passed on 23rd March, 2024, the penalty so levied is clearly barred by limitation and therefore, the order so passed by the Assessing Officer deserves to be quashed. 6. In his submissions, the Ld. DR submitted that consequent to the order dated 19th June, 2023 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in the quantum proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued a fresh show-cause dated 8th February 2024 and thereafter the order u/s 271(1)(c) was passed on 22nd March, 2024 which is clearly within the limitation period as provided u/s 275(1)(a) of the Act. 7. We have heard the rival subm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve been initiated without application of mind and therefore, the consequent penalty order deserves to be set aside and in support, reliance was placed on certain Courts decisions. 9. In his submissions, the Ld. DR submitted that it is a case where pursuant to search action, addition has been made by the AO in terms of credits in undisclosed bank accounts and undisclosed loan transactions and the same have been brought to tax and it is thus a clear case of concealment of income. It was submitted that the penalty proceedings have been rightly initiated by issue of show-cause notice dated 30th of November, 2011 followed by another show-cause dated 8th February, 2024 and inspite of specific show-cause, the assessee has not responded and file....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter was however kept in abeyance for the reason that the assessee has moved in appeal before the ld CIT(A) and thereafter, further appeal was filed before the Tribunal and, thereafter, after receipt of the Tribunal order wherein the nature of the additions so made by the AO have been sustained except at a reduced quantum, a fresh show-cause was issued on 8th February, 2024 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act wherein the AO has clearly specified the charge in terms of "concealment of income". We therefore find that the said show-cause has been issued in continuation of the initial show-cause notice and therefore, should be read and understood in continuation of the initial show-cause, the subject matter thereof being the same. The subject matter of ini....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bunal, however, the same turns on specific facts and legal proposition so laid down therein therefore have to be understood in the context of facts which were presented before the Hon'ble Courts and taken into consideration while laying down the proposition. In the decision in case of Mohd Frahan A Shaikh (supra), the question before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court was where the assessment order clearly records satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or other or both grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c), does a mere defect in the notice - not striking off the irrelevant matter vitiate the proceedings and the Hon'ble Court has answered the question in the affirmative. There was thus an ambiguity in the show-cause notice and reliance was pla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e initial show-cause and post receipt of the Tribunal order, the substantive proceedings were started with the issuance of the second show-cause. And we have discussed supra, both the notices should be read in continuation and cannot be read disjointly and the ambiguity in the initial show-cause has been made good in the subsequent show-cause with a specific charge well before the assessee could respond. Therefore, the said decision doesn't support the case of the assessee. 12. The other decisions cited at the Bar were also rendered in the peculiar facts of the case and we find that in none of the decisions, the facts are pari-materia and therefore, the assessee doesn't get support from the said decisions. 13. In the result, the groun....