9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 594X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/2022-23/1046470778(1), dated 26/10/2022 arising out of the orders passed U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] dated 9/9/2021 & 12/9/2021 for the AY 2007-08 and 2012-13 respectively. Since the assessee has raised identical grounds of appeal in both the cases, these appeals are clubbed, heard together and disposed off in this consolidated order. Appeal wise adjudication is given in the following paragraphs of this order. 2. Brief facts of the case pertaining to the appeal for the AY 2007-08 (ITA No. 241/Viz/2022) are that the assessee filed his return of income for the AY 2007-08 on 31/3/2009 admitting a total income of Rs. 4,44,490/-. Subsequently, survey U/s. 133A was conducted in the case of the assessee on 5/11/2013 whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unds of appeal: "1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have held that the notice issued U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is invalid and ought to have quashed the penalty order as void ab initio. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have quashed the penalty order as barred by limitation. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in upholding the penalty of Rs. 4,45,924/- levied by the Assessing Officer U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that the penalty is not warranted as appellant neither concealed the particulars of income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 6. Any other grounds may be urged at the ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e pleaded that the order of the Ld. Revenue Authorities be upheld. 5. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record and the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. Admittedly the assessee has not furnished the investments details while filing the return of income. However, the assessee, only after the survey operation U/s. 133A of the Act, admitted the income wherein he admitted that he has made investment in the properties. It is also found that the Ld. CIT(A) during the First Appellate Proceedings has accepted the claim of the assessee regarding the sources of income for the assessee as well as his wife and has estimated that it would be reasonable to consider Rs. 10 lakhs as available with the assessee for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s made on estimate basis, various judicial pronouncements have held that penalty cannot be levied when the addition is estimated. We therefore find that the levy of penalty based on the addition made by an estimate cannot be a valid ground and hence it should be deleted. It is ordered accordingly. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 7. With regard to ITA No. 242/Viz/2022 (AY 2012-13), since the assessee has raised the similar grounds of appeal to that of the grounds of appeal raised in his appeal in ITA No. 241/Viz/2022 (AY 2007-08), the only difference is in figures, which is adjudicated on merits in the above paragraphs of this order, our decision given on the assessee's appeal for the AY 2007-08 mutatis mutandis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
