9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 969X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 05-06 respectively. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Assessee is now in appeal before us. We first take up IT(SS) A No. 573/Ahd/2012 (A.Y. 2004-05). The ground raised by Assessee reads as under:- 1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in levying penalty of ₹ 19,78,100/- u/s 271(1)(c) arising out of addition of ₹ 60 lacs on account of unexplained investments in land. 2. The facts as culled out from the order of lower authorities are as under. 3. A search and seizure action in the case of Assessee was conducted on 18.01.2006 wherein Kabja Rasid dated 16.12.2003 for TPS No. 5, FP Nos. 62,63,6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 67, the area was also different, but it was for same land. It is also revealed that the Society had made an application building permission on 01.03.2002 which was given on 02.11.2002 and completion of this building was made on 30.04.2004. For TP Scheme No. 5 (Umra-North) FP No. 62fto 64, 66 67 when permission was given in the name of the society for construction of the building which was completed on 30.04.2004. As per the Surat Municipal Corporation Certificate dated 05.07.2004 whereas the assessee had purchased open land 1237.46 sq.mtrs. out of 3240 sq. mtrs. In Kabja Rasid, plot no.65 is mentioned whereas in Surat Municipal Corporation, the plot no.66 mentioned. Remaining plot nos. are same in the both agreements. Further assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the same was deleted by the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal vide order dated 15.03.2013 (in ITA No. 3384/A/2009). Since the quantum addition of which the penalty itself has been levied has been deleted the penalty does not survive. We are therefore of the view that in the present case penalty cannot be levied. We therefore direct the deletion of penalty. Thus this ground of Assessee is allowed. IT(SS)A No. 615/Ahd2012 for A.Y. 05-06:- 6. A search and seizure action in the case of Assessee was conducted on 18.01.2006 wherein one bank account in the name of Rajesh Textile was found. On being confronted, the Assessee admitted it to be his benami bank account and also admitted that all the transactions reflected in the bank account belon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessee as the same was based on incriminating documents and benami bank account of the Assessee and which was not disclosed in the return of income filed prior to search. He was of the view that the omission at the time of filing original return of income was deliberate and the Assessee has not furnished bona fide explanation that can show that all the facts relating to undisclosed income and the material to the computation of his income has been disclosed by the Assessee. He thus confirmed the levy of penalty by the Assessing Officer. 7. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the Assessee is now in appeal before us. 8. Before us the ld. A.R. submitted that the income pertaining to the bank account found during the course of search was d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
