9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 542X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - ITA No. 2157/DEL/2016 1. That on the circumstances of the case, the assessment made u/s 153A of the Act by the Assessing Officer, and confirmed by the CIT(A), is bad on facts and in law on the grounds that - i) as per Panchnama no material whatsoever, was seized in the course of search u/s 132 of the Act on 07.12.2010 on the assessee and therefore the income returned ought to have been accepted, and ii) the utilization of the material seized in the course of search on 15.11.2007 on M/s BPTP Ltd (and not on the assessee) was not permissible in the present assessment in as much as it is proved/evidenced from AO's own record that no material was found in the course of aforesaid search, which belonged to the assessee, and because of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A of the Act was issued requiring the assessee to furnish the true and correct return of income. In response thereto, the return of income was filed declaring a total loss of Rs. 3,100/-. The assessment was completed u/s 153A/143(3) for the Assessment Year 2011-12 vide order dated 28/3/2013 by the Assessing Officer at income of Rs. 1,31,28,977/- thereby making an addition of Rs. 1,31,32,077/- on account of interest on Post Dated Cheques (PDCs). Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 31/12/2014. In the meanwhile, the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for the present Assessment Year and penalty order was pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 6637 & 6818/del/2014 order dated 18/5/2018 which is factually similar to the assessee's case. The Ld. AR further submitted that under these same identical circumstances, the assessee's case is also squarely covered by the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in case of another group company i.e. Utkarsh Real Tech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2019) 76 ITR(Tribunal) 688 ITAT Delhi. Thus, in view of these facts, submissions and legal positions, the Ld. AR submitted that under identical facts and circumstances, the assessee's case is squarely covered from aforesaid two decisions of Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal and addition may be deleted. 5. As relates to penalty appeal, the Ld. AR submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer has failed to establish that the assessee company was involved in unexplained/unaccounted money transactions. Therefore, the assessee succeeds in quantum appeal. 8. As regards penalty order, firstly, the correct limb was not struck off or rather indicated by the Assessing Officer in the notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and hence the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in case of M/s Sahara India Life Insurance Ltd. (supra) is squarely applicable in present case. Besides this, since the quantum appeal has been decided in favour of the assessee and addition has been deleted, the penalty itself does not survive. Hence, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. 9. In result, both the appeals of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
