TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1685
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4,01,727 on the notional income of Rs. 2,03,727/- representing the annual letting value and undisclosed income of Rs. 1,98,000 determined by AO and further erred in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of a search assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A ignoring that; i. AO had failed to recompute the Annual Letting Value as per the direction of ITAT, and was yet to give effect to the order of ITAT ii. provisions of S. 271(1)(c) were inapplicable to the case of search assessments the addition was made vide an order u/s 153A, iv. the addition was in respect of such income for which no incriminating material was available, v. the addition was not sustainable in law, vi. the penalty was initiated without specifying any charge in the assessment order or penalty notices or penalty orders, vii. the appellant was prevented by a reasonable cause, viii. the order passed was beyond the time permissible u/s 275, ix. passing an order dt. 04.03.2022 u/s. 271(1)(c) in respect of the proceedings which had been time barred by operation of law and provisions of S. 275 of the Income Tax Act, x. levying penalty u/s. 271(1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Act. (b) Your appellant submits that the provisions of s. 275 required an AO to pass the order within the time prescribed under the law on passing the order by CIT(A) on merit of the case. (c) Your appellant prays that an order passed in specific violation of s. 275 be quashed. GROUND NO. 3: SERIOUS VIOLATION OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND OF S. 274 AND S. 275 (a) The Id. CIT(A) erred in law in confirming the order of the AO in gross violation of the provisions of natural justice; i. by denying any opportunity to your appellant to present the case on merits, ii. by not giving effect to the order of ITAT on merits of the case, iii. in not giving any opportunity to show cause on merits as to why penalty shall not be levied. (b) Your appellant submits that the Id. AO has grossly violated the provisions of natural justice, (c) Your appellant pleads that a penalty order passed in violation of the provisions, of natural justice be quashed." AY 2011-12 "GROUND NO. 1: LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(c) OF RS. 46,527/- (a) The Id. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the levy of penal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e same and further erred in passing the order of penalty once again by not identifying one of the two offences and instead levy penalty for allegedly concealing the particulars of income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, xviii. in initiating penalty proceedings without recording his satisfaction in the assessment order or in notice that the facts recorded in assessment satisfied him to initiate penalty proceedings. xix. levying the penalty without giving any opportunity to your appellant to present the case on merits as to why penalty be not levied, xx. Ignoring the explanations furnished by the appellant in good faith vide letter dt. 16.10.2024, 19.11.2024 and 22.11.2024 in response to the Show Cause Notice dt. 10.10.2024 and 08.11.2024 (b) Your appellant strongly submits that the appellant had furnished accurate particulars of income for the year under consideration. (c) Your appellant prays that the penalty of Rs. 46,527/- levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act be deleted. GROUND NO. 2: VIOLATION OF PROVISION OF S. 275 (a) The Id. CIT(A) erred in law and on in facts in confirming the order of penalty passed b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... provisions of S. 275 of the Income Tax Act, Χ. levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) simply by relying on the order of assessment without examining the facts afresh in penalty proceedings, xi. the appellant had requested the ld. AO for extension of time pending the adjudication of appeal on merits of the case by the ITAT, xii. levying the penalty @ 100% of tax when there had been no concealment of income and appellant had furnished accurate particulars of income, xiii. ignoring the fact that the appellant had determined the total income as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, xiv. by simply relying on the finding in the assessment order without in any manner applying his mind as to whether in the assessment order could be construed to represent any concealment of income, xv. without determining whether the assessee had furnished any inaccurate particulars of income or concealed income xvi. ignoring that the appellant had neither furnished accurate particular of income and nor had concealed any income, xvii. without identifying one of the two offences for which he proposed to levy penalty and informing the sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (a) The ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c), for concealment of income, by ld. AO of Rs. 92,600/- being 100% of the tax on notional income of Rs. 4,29,223/- representing the annual letting value determined by AO and further erred in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of a search assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A ignoring that; i. AO had failed to recompute the Annual Letting Value as per the direction of ITAT, and was yet to give effect to the order of ITAT ii. provisions of S. 271(1)(c) were inapplicable to the case of search assessment iii. the addition was made vide an order u/s 153A, iv. the addition was in respect of such income for which no incriminating material was available, v. the addition was not sustainable in law, vi. the penalty was initiated without specifying any charge in the assessment order or penalty notices or penalty orders, vii. the appellant was prevented by a reasonable cause, viii. the order passed was beyond the time permissible u/s 275, ix. passing an order dt. 02.03.2022 u/s. 271(1)(c) in respect of the procee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (a) The Id. CIT(A) erred in law and on in facts in confirming the order of penalty passed by AO in violation of limitation u/s 275 of the Act. (b) Your appellant submits that the provisions of s. 275 required an AO to pass the order within the time prescribed under the law on passing the order by CIT(A) on merit of the case. (c) Your appellant prays that an order passed in specific violation of s. 275 be quashed. GROUND NO. 3: SERIOUS VIOLATION OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND OF S. 274 AND S. 275 (a) The Id. CIT(A) erred in law in confirming the order of the AO in gross violation of the provisions of natural justice; i. by denying any opportunity to your appellant to present the case on merits, ii. by not giving effect to the order of ITAT on merits of the case, iii. in not giving any opportunity to show cause on merits as to why penalty shall not be levied. (b) Your appellant submits that the Id. AO has grossly violated the provisions of natural justice, (c) Your appellant pleads that a penalty order passed in violation of the provisions of natural justice be quashed." AY 2016-17 "GROUND NO....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thout identifying one of the two offences for which he proposed to levy penalty and informing the same to your appellant for responding to the same and further erred in passing the order of penalty once again by not identifying one of the two offences and instead levy penalty for allegedly concealing the particulars of income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, xviii. in initiating penalty proceedings without recording his satisfaction in the assessment order or in notice that the facts recorded in assessment satisfied him to initiate penalty proceedings. xix. levying the penalty without giving any opportunity to your appellant to present the case on merits as to why penalty be not levied, xx. ignoring the explanations furnished by the appellant in good faith vide letter dt. 16.10.2024, 19.11.2024 and 22.11.2024 in response to the Show Cause Notice dt. 10.10.2024 and 08.11.2024 b) Your appellant strongly submits that the appellant had furnished accurate particulars of income for the year under consideration. (c) Your appellant prays that the penalty of Rs. 21,780/- levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act be deleted. GROUND ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A dated 26.10.2021. Thereafter, the Ld. AO issued a show cause notice to the assessee to explain as to why penalty should not be levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. As the assessee had filed a second appeal against the assessment order, he requested the AO to keep the penalty proceedings in abeyance till its disposal by the coordinate bench. However, Ld. AO proceeded to impose the penalty of Rs. 1,24,130/- @100% of tax sought to be evaded in respect of the notional income. 5. Aggrieved with the penalty order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Vide order dated 28.11.2024, Ld. CIT(A) observed that the co-ordinate bench has, in the meanwhile, decided the quantum appeal and has directed the AO to allow standard deduction @30% ALV u/s 24 of the Act, while upholding the action of the Ld. AO in taxing notional income, following its own decision in the case of M/s Priya Gurnani. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(A) directed the Ld. AO to recompute the penalty after recomputing the notional income from house property as per the directions of the co-ordinate bench. 6. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wrong and having regard to the fact that the assessee had also received the sum of Rs. 67 cr. as interest-free deposit from the lessee in the absence of which the rent would have been much higher and, therefore, the ALV was ultimately determined at Rs. 75,63,360/-. Under these circumstances, the Ld. AO had held that the assessee had concealed material particulars and furnished inaccurate particulars of income and therefore penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was levied. The Hon'ble High Court upheld the penalty after observing that the explanation of the assessee was not bonafide and therefore Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) would be applicable in this case. 8.2 In the present case, the assessee has not received any rental income and the properties in question are shown in the balance sheet. It is not the case of the department that the assessee has not shown the properties in hand or has received some rental income which was not declared. Hence, the case of the assessee is distinguishable on facts. 8.3 On the other hand, in several decisions of the co-ordinate benches including the one cited by the assessee in the case of Shri Suresh Shivlal Bhasin (supra), it has been held that penalt....