9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 542X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on made on PDC s based on the first search does not have any corroborative evidence which has been brought by the Revenue on record. The CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer has failed to establish that the assessee company was involved in unexplained/unaccounted money transactions. Therefore, the assessee succeeds in quantum appeal. 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. [ 2019 (8) TMI 409 - DELHI HIGH COURT] is squarely applicable in present case. Besides this, since the quantum appeal has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of which fact no action was taken u/s 153C in the hands of the assessee and it would amount to revisiting the matter on same facts, which is not permissible. 2. That without prejudice on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred is not deleting the total addition made by the A.O. on account of alleged interest paid as PDCs from undisclosed sources. 3. That the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXX, New Delhi are bad in law and void ab initio ITA No. 6295/DEL/2016 1. That the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-31, New Delhi are bad on facts and in law and are void ab initio. 2. That on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Assessment Year and penalty order was passed on 31/3/2016 thereby levying penalty of ₹ 10,62,998/-. Being aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 29/9/2016. 4. As regards merits of the quantum appeal are concerned, the Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer in its order referred only the seized material during the search on 15/11/2007 when the assessee company was not even in existence. The assessee company was incorporated only on 30/07/2009 and on date of search i.e. 15/11/2007, the assessee company was not existent, the material seized during the course of first search has absolutely no correlation with the assessee comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. As relates to penalty appeal, the Ld. AR submitted that the penalty levied is bad in law also on account of the reason that notice u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) did not specify the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) for which penalty proceedings have been initiated by way of striking off the inappropriate words in penalty notice. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in case of PCIT Vs. M/s Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. ITA No. 475/20 order dated 2/8/2019 and also the decision of Karnataka High Court in case of CIT Vs. Manjunath Cotton Ginni Factory 359 ITR 565 which is confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. M/s SSA s Emerald Meadows order dated 5/8/2016. Thus, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
