9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 1194 - AT - Income TaxAssessment u/s 153A - penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - if the name of the assessee against whom the block assessment has been made, does not figure in the warrant of authorization issued u/s.132, the block assessment would be unauthorized, void ab-initio. If the block assessment itself is without jurisdiction, then there is no question of levy of any penalty u/s.158BFA(2). Accordingly, the Tribunal had held that penalty cannot be sustained once the block assessment is held to be void ab-initio. Since in the instant case the assessee has taken a specific ground before the Ld.CIT(A) that as there was no warrant of authorization in the name of the assessee, the 153A proceedings are bad in law and since the Ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated on this issue, therefore, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the ground of appeal raised. He shall also give a finding as to whether any warrant of authorization was issued in the name of the assessee or not. Since we are restoring the matter to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) on this preliminary issue, we refrain ourselves from adjudicating the appeal on merit.- Decided in favour of Revenue for statistical purposes.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Validity of assessment proceedings under Section 153A due to the absence of a search warrant in the name of the assessee. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c): The Revenue appealed against the deletion of penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Years 2004-05 to 2007-08. The penalties were imposed after the assessee revised their income declarations following a search and seizure action under Section 132. The Assessing Officer (AO) argued that the additional income declared by the assessee was due to the search action, thus justifying the penalties. The CIT(A) deleted the penalties, noting that the additional income declared was for peace of mind and not due to concealment or inaccurate particulars. The CIT(A) also observed that there was no direct linkage between the additional income and any seized material. The Revenue contended that the additional income was not a voluntary disclosure and should be considered concealment for penalty purposes. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's explanation was plausible and bona fide, and since the AO accepted the revised income without finding any falsehood in the explanation, the penalty was not justified. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalties. 2. Validity of Assessment Proceedings under Section 153A:The assessee argued that the assessment proceedings under Section 153A were invalid as no search warrant was issued in their name. The Tribunal noted that a specific ground regarding the absence of a search warrant was raised before the CIT(A) but remained unadjudicated. The Tribunal highlighted that a search under Section 132 is person-specific, and if the assessee's name does not appear in the warrant, the block assessment is void ab initio. The Tribunal referenced the Delhi Bench's decision in Dhiraj Suri Vs. Addl.CIT, which held that without a warrant of authorization, the block assessment and any subsequent penalties are unauthorized and void. The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to adjudicate whether a warrant of authorization was issued in the assessee's name and to determine the validity of the assessment proceedings under Section 153A. Consequently, the Tribunal refrained from adjudicating the appeal on its merits and allowed the Revenue's appeals for statistical purposes. Conclusion:The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to adjudicate the validity of the assessment proceedings under Section 153A due to the absence of a search warrant in the assessee's name. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalties under Section 271(1)(c) but noted that the CIT(A) must first address the preliminary issue of the search warrant's validity. All four appeals filed by the Revenue were allowed for statistical purposes.
|
