9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the assessee by the decision in Pr.CIT vs Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. [ 2019 (8) TMI 409 - DELHI HIGH COURT] . Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Delhi High Court to the present case, we hold that where the AO has failed to strike off the irrelevant portion not applicable to the assessee, there is no merit in the penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The same is held to be bad and invalid in law. Penalty levied u/s 271AAA - In the case of other members of the Dawat group relying on the decision in the case of Shri Ashwani Kumar Arora vs ACIT [ 2017 (11) TMI 456 - ITAT DELHI] , similar penalty has been deleted u/s 271AAA of the Act. In the case of Ashok Kumar Arora vs ACIT [ 2017 (11) TMI 513 - ITAT DELH ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings, hence the notice issued under section 274 of the Act, and the order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 13. That the penalty has been initiated vide notice under section 271(1)(c)/274 of the Act dated without any specific charge, hence, the said notice and the order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 3. The additional Grounds of appeal do not require any investigation into the facts. Hence, the same are admitted for adjudication. 4. The issue raised by way of additional ground of appeal is against the non-satisfaction of the Assessing Officer while initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 45,66,220/-. Search u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on 10.02.2009 in Dawat group of cases including the assessee. Thereafter, the assessment was completed at total income of ₹ 56,68,720/-. Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA of the Act were initiated against the assessee. The reasons for the assessment against the assessee at higher figure was that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to file the details of income from trading business, which was shown under the head other income to the extent of ₹ 5,31,076/- in the computation of income filed with his return of income. He was also asked to specify the nature of business carried out by him, the basis of computing such income and to identify the part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... going on, where the search started on 17.02.2009 and was completed on 27.03.2009. The CIT(A) however, upheld the order of the Assessing Officer confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act at ₹ 1,83,357/-. 10. The Ld.AR for the assessee pointed out that the issue raised in the present appeal is squarely covered by the decision of Tribunal in the case of Shri Ashwani Kumar Arora vs ACIT in ITA No.6615/Del/2013, order dated 16.08.2017 relating to Assessment Year 2009-10. 11. The Ld.DR for the Revenue placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below. 12. We find that similar issue raised against the levy of penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act arose in the case of other members of the Dawat group of cases, wherein search ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he income at the same amount declared or surrendered by the assessee on the basis of the seized documents. 12. It is not the case of the revenue that the income belonging to the assessee was more than what is surrendered by him. The assessee has modified the surrender made during the course of search on 17.03.2009 and as such it cannot be that it is a case of retraction because the income declared by the assessee which is assessed by the AO. The letter dated 17.03.2009 was filed before the Director of Income Tax (Investigations) I New Delhi who was the in charge of the search and it is also stated in the said letter this surrender is for the whole group and the taxes shall be paid in respective hands/ persons after going through the se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
