9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt : Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP: These three appeals by the Revenue relate to the AYs 2006-07 to 2008-09. Since common issue is raised in these three appeals, we are, therefore, proceeding to dispose them off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case for the assessment year 2006-07 are that a search and seizure o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee got relief of Rs. 23.70 lac. The Revenue is aggrieved against the reduction in penalty. 3. We have heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. Relevant part of section 271AAA(1) provides that : `The Assessing Officer may, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, direct that, in a case where search has been initiated under section 132 on or a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted." 4. On going through the definition 'specified previous year' in juxtaposition to section 271AAA(1), it becomes clear that penalty at the rate of 10% of the undisclosed income is to be imposed only in respect of 'specified previous year.' The ld. DR has placed on record a copy of the order passed by the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in ACIT vs. Smt. J. Mythili (2013) 35 taxmann.com 83 (Chenn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utandis similar to those for the A.Y. 2006-07. Following the view taken hereinabove, we set aside the impugned orders for such two years also and remit the matter to the file of CIT(A) for taking a fresh decision in conformity with the view expressed by us hereinabove.
6. In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
The order pronounced in the open court on 25.10.2017. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
