9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oceedings in the statement u/s.132(2) and also offered in the return of income filed. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) ought not to have confirmed the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 of Rs. 3,91,04,244/- being @100% of tax on Rs. 3,91,04,244/- being income offered during the course of search proceedings in the statement u/s.132(2) and also offered in the return of income filed. 3. The penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of Rs. 1,31,62,489/- requires to be deleted." 3. Assessee also filed the following additional grounds : "1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) inspite of the fact that no proper satisfaction was recorded for initiation of penalty in the assessment order. 2. The levy of penalty u/s.271(1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opined that assessee had indulged into debiting sham or inflated purchased in its books of account and assessee admitted the said allegations. However, CIT(A) deleted quantum addition of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- and the penalty levied on the said addition. 6. Aggrieved with the order of CIT(A) confirming the penalty on the extent of additional income, the assessee is in appeal before us with the grounds as well as the additional grounds extracted above. 7. Before us, at the outset, Ld Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the contents of Para 3 of the assessment order and submitted that this is a case where penalty of Rs. 3,91,04,244/- on the additional income disclosed by the assessee. AO initiated the penalty proceedings for 'conceali ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.5 of the penalty order and the same reads as under : "Para 3 of the assessment order : 3. During search action, assessee has made disclosure of additional income of Rs. 3,91,04,244/-. Subsequently, notice u/s.148 was issued in response assessee filed return declaring disclosure of Rs. 3,91,04,244/- declared during search action. Thus, to this extent, assessee has concealed the particulars of income. It is pertinent to note here that said income has been disclosed by the assessee due to search action only. Had there been no search action, this income would not have been disclosed by the assessee and the same would have escaped assessment. Therefore, penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated separately. Para 5 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
