9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 393X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .N. PRASAD, JM This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT (A)- 31, New Delhi dated 24.2.2017 pertaining to the assessment year ( AY ) 2007-08 whereby he confirmed the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer ( AO ) u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act ). 2. Briefly stated, it is a search case. Search u/s 132 of the Act was conducted at the Bakshi Group of cases and the assessee was also covered. In response to notice u/s 153A the assessee filed return for the AY 2007-08 declaring income of ₹ 11,97,20,118/- surrendering an amount of ₹ 9.50 crore under the head long term capital gain . Assessment was completed on 31.03.2015 on total income of ₹ 12,45,65,094/- including ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he wife of the assessee (Minu Bakshi) the Tribunal, Bench E, New Delhi vide order dated 11.12.2019 in ITA No. 3118/Del/2017 for the AY 2007-08 set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and directed the AO to cancel the penalty levied. A copy of the said order of the Tribunal was submitted before us. According to him the matter is covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Ld. AR further submitted that concealment penalty due to addition on account of valuation of paintings is unwarranted. 5. The Ld. DR had nothing to say. He placed reliance on the Ld. CIT(A) s order and supported it. 6. We have perused the order of the Tribunal, Bench E, New Delhi dated 11.12.2019 in the case of Minu Bakshi, wife of the assessee be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for penalty in search cases given under the statute after 01.07.2012 that of Section 271AAB of the Act which was totally ignored by the Assessing Officer. While dealing with this contention, the CIT(A) has taken the due date that of filing of return of income i.e. 31.08.2007 which is contrary to Section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus, the penalty itself is based on incorrect Section. Therefore we are taking up the contention of the assessee that there is no particular limb mentioned in the notice issued under Section 271(l)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act. This issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon hie Supreme Court in case of M/s SSA Emerald Meadow. The extract of the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in M/s S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1(l)(c) has been initiated, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the penalty levied u/s 271(l)(c) is not sustainable and has to be deleted. Although the Ld. DR submitted that mere non-striking off of the inappropriate words will not invalidate the penalty proceedings, however, the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of SSA S Emerald Meadows (supra) where the SLP filed by the Revenue has been dismissed 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 Honble High Court in case of M/s. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) will be applicable in the present case. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
