9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a High Court in the case of SSA S Emerald Meadows [ 2015 (11) TMI 1620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] where the SLP filed by the Revenue has been dismissed [ 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER] is directly on the issue contested herein by the Assessee. Further, when the notice is not mentioning the concealment or the furnishing of inaccurate particulars, the ratio laid down by the Hon ble High Court in case of M/s. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. [ 2019 (8) TMI 409 - DELHI HIGH COURT] will be applicable in the present case.- Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 4379/DEL/2017 - - - Dated:- 3-11-2021 - SHRI G. S. PANNU , PRESIDENT AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE , JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Respondent by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Income for the assessment year under consideration, the assessee himself had added the sum of ₹ 5,00,00,000/-. In assessee s case evidence was found in the form of Excel Sheet Down payment booking details.xls seized as Annexure A-27 during the Search of Aerens Group at the corporate office of AEZ Group at 300-303 Bakshi House, Nehru Place, New Delhi, which was found in hard disk. In the Excel Sheet, name of the assessee appears along with the details of payment of ₹ 1,54,00,000/- by Cheque and ₹ 5,00,00,000/- in Cash for a property of 10,000 sq.ft. @ ₹ 6,887 per sq.ft. and balance remaining at ₹ 34,70,000/- in Indirapuram Habitat Centre along with other Investors. The assessee accepted that he had invest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Ld. DR further submitted that the Assessing Officer has correctly initiated and levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the concealment of income by the assessee. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the notice u/s 271(1)(c) has not strike off the particular limb there is no satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment order. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in SSA Meadow as well as Sahara Insurance. The Ld. AR further submitted that the CIT(A) has taken a proper cognizance that since the matter was of search the initiation of 271(1)(c) is not applicable in case of search after first day of June, 2007 but fore first day of July, 2012, the provisions of Section 271AAA shall apply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Bench of this Court rendered in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -VS- MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (2013) 359 ITR 565. 4. In our view, since the matter is covered by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Thus, Additional Ground No. (ii) of the assessee's appeal is allowed. Since the inception of the notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) has become null and void, there is no need to comment on merit of the case. The Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is quashed. Since in the instant case also the inappropriate words in the penalty notice has not been struck off a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order in Commissioner of Income Tax v. SSA s Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 Taxman.com 241(Kar), the appeal against which was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 11485 of 2016 by order dated 5th August, 2016. 22. On this issue again this Court is unable to find any error having been committed by the ITAT. No substantial question of law arises. Thus, notice under Section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act itself is bad in law. The CIT(A) rightly deleted the penalty. There is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 8. In result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on this 3rd Day of November, 2021. - - TaxTMI - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
