TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1146
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Act') for AYs 2012-13 and 2015-16 dated 27.01.2026 and 05.01.2026 respectively. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 1184/KOL/2026; AY 2012-13: "1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 under the facts and circumstances of the case which is bad in law. 2. That the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [ hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)"] is bad in law and liable to be quashed as the learned CIT(A) has proceeded on an incorrect factual premise that penalty levied is Rs.75,000, whereas the actual pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me surrendered and the incriminating records seized. Order of CIT (A) annexed. 8. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in relying upon case laws which are factually distinguishable from the present case and has failed to consider and distinguish the binding judicial precedents cited by the appellant, rendering the order unsustainable in law. 9. That the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that voluntary disclosure in return filed under section 153A, which has been accepted without variation, does not amount to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 10. That the penalty is otherwise unsustainable as the tax sought to be evaded is NIL in law, since the assessed income is the same as the income returne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing gross non-application of mind. 3. That the learned CIT(A), by upholding a penalty of 209,619, has effectively confirmed or enhanced a non-existent penalty amount without issuing the mandatory notice under section 251(2), in violation of principles of natural justice. 4. That the learned CIT(A) has failed to consider the findings recorded in the appellate proceedings in relation to the assessment of assessee's income arising out of the same search for the concerned Assessment Year 2015-16, vitiating applicability of Explanation 5A to Sec 271(1)(c) as there is no direct nexus established between income surrendered and the incriminating records seized. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to pass a reasoned and speaking ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment was completed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act on 31.12.2017, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.7,84,220/-. Simultaneously, penalty proceedings were also initiated, and the Ld. AO levied a penalty of Rs.15,450/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 28.06.2018 for concealment of income. Aggrieved with the penalty order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the imposition of penalty for concealment of income in respect of the surrendered amount of Rs.75,000/- was justified, erroneously referring to the levied penalty amount as Rs.75,000/-. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Ld. AO and dismissed the appeal of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....06.2018 i.e. maximum or 300% on tax sought to be evaded by the AO is upheld, according to the discussions made vide Para no.7.1.1 to 7.1.4. of this order." 7. A perusal of Form No. 35 enclosed at page 14 of the paper book shows that the amount of penalty imposed has been erroneously mentioned as Rs.75,000/- in column 7.a and 7.b of Form No. 35 as against a sum of Rs. 15,450/- being the penalty imposed by the Ld. AO on the surrendered income of the assessee of Rs. 75,000/-. No show cause notice had been issued by the Ld. CIT(A) for enhancing the penalty and inadvertently the income surrendered has been taken as the penalty imposed. Since the assessee had surrendered income of Rs. 75,000/- on account of brokerage income on the basis of the....