9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 849X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessee by : Shri P. C. Yadav, Advocate Department by: Shri Govind Singhal, Sr. D.R.; ORDER PER BENCH : 1. These are the six appeals are filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07 to 2011-12 against the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) confirmed by the ld. CIT (Appeals) raising the following common grounds of appeal (except the amounts):- 1. That the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in upholding the penalty of ₹ 7,10,700/- imposed by the AO., invoking the provisions of sec 271 (1) (c) of IT Act 1961. 2. That the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in upholding the penalty of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act. Thereafter the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act started. 4. A search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee as well as the residential premises of Directors of the assessee on 6.09.2011. Notice under Section 153A of the Act was issued in response to which assessee filed NIL return and assessment under Section 153A of the Act got concluded. During the pendency of the assessment proceedings under Section 153A of the Act the assessee approached the Settlement Commission and offered additional income in all these years. The application of the assessee was rejected by the Settlement Commission therefore the assessments got completed under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment year 2007-08 and ₹ 3,09,000/- for assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. Assessing officer assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (Appeals) challenging the same on the jurisdictional aspect as well as on the merits of the case. The ld. CIT (Appeals) confirmed the order of the ld. Assessing Officer and, therefore, assessee is in appeal before us for all these years. 5. The ld. AR submitted that in the assessment orders the Assessing Officer has simply initiated the penalty proceedings without recording clear satisfaction and on the specific charge against the assessee. He further submitted that the penalty has been levied in the penalty orders on both the charges and, therefore, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... round raised by the assessee. 10. As the additional ground is admitted and is jurisdictional, the same was disposed of first. 11. The ld. AR has submitted the certified copies of notice issued under Section 274 of the Act for all these years dated 20th June, 2014. The claim of the ld. AR is that in all these notice the ld. Assessing Officer has not struck off any of the twin limbs of the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is further stated that Hon ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT Vs. SSA Emeralds 73 taxmann.com 241 (Kar.) has held that such notice issued under Section 274 of the Act suffers from infirmity and based on it , penalty cannot be levied. Hon ble Delhi High Court also in the case of CIT Vs. Sahara India L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
