9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 2033X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal or the High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as the case may be, the power under Section 275(1A) of the IT Act cannot be exercised and the fresh penalty proceedings cannot be initiated once earlier the penalty proceedings were dropped after considering the reply submitted by the assessee, as there is no revised assessment which is required to be giving effect to. CIT (A) as well as the learned Tribunal are justified in deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) faced with a situation that earlier the penalty proceedings were dropped after considering the reply submitted by the assessee and that thereafter the assessment was not required to be revised gi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Somabhai Ambalal Prajapati, Ahmedabad. On the basis of the documents, evidences and other material seized during the course of search, the searched person made a disclosure of ₹ 13.02 Crores towards sale consideration of various plots of land at village Bhadaj. It was found that the assessee herein - Smt. Geetaben Chandulal Prajapati was co-owner of the land bearing Block Nos.500 and 510 at village Bhadaj. Being the co-owner she received total amount of ₹ 62,14,322/-. It was noticed that she did not file return of income for AY 2006-07 and therefore, the related capital gain arising out of the sale proceeds of the above two mentioned plots of land amounting to ₹ 62,14,322/- remained to be taxed. Therefore, notice under Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment proceeding was initiated, the Assessing Officer also issued the penalty notice which was replied by the assessee and thereafter considering the reply filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer consciously dropped the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for AY 2006-07. Therefore, it was submitted that once the Assessing Officer dropped the penalty proceedings after considering the reply furnished by the assessee, thereafter the second penalty proceedings were not permissible. The assessee made the submission on merits also. Accepting the submission made on behalf of the assessee, the learned CIT (A) dropped the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 2.3 Feeling aggrieved and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n behalf of the Revenue that in the present case the order of assessment was challenged by the assessee before the learned CIT (A) and the learned CIT (A) confirmed the assessment order and therefore, thereafter when the penalty proceedings were initiated giving effect to the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Assessing Officer was justified and/or was well within its jurisdiction to pass an order imposing penalty even though he had earlier dropped the penalty proceedings. 3.3 Mrs. Bhatt, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue has also made submission on merits that as the assessee did not file the return of income though she received a total sum of ₹ 62,14,322/- out of the sale consideration for sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y proceedings initiated u/s.271(1)(c) in the above case for A.Y. 2006-07 is hereby dropped. 4.1 It appears that against the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT (A) determining the total income of the assessee at ₹ 62,15,820/-. The said appeal came to be dismissed by the learned CIT (A) on 20.08.2013. That thereafter on dismissal of the appeal by the learned CIT (A), the Assessing Officer issued the fresh notice to the assessee for imposing the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act and thereafter passed the order imposing the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act on 14.11.2014. The same has been deleted by the learned CIT (A) confirmed by the learned Tribunal on the ground that on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the High Court under section 260A or an appeal to the Supreme Court under section 261 or revision under section 263 or section 264 and an order imposing or enhancing or reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the imposition of penalty is passed before the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal or the High Court or the Supreme Court is received by the [Principal Chief Commissioner] Chief Commissioner or the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner or the order of revision under section 263 or section 264 is passed, an order imposing or enhancing or reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the imposition of penalty may be passed on the basis of assessment as revised by giving ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
