JITENDRA M DOSHI,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 9, MUMBAI

Since similar issues are involved in all the year under consideration, wherein penalty u/s.271(1)(c) has been levied for the similar reason, therefore, all the appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order.

Common issues in all the years relate to imposition of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) with respect to the peak credit determined by the AO. The 2 AO has levied penalty equal to 200% of the tax sought to be evaded on the assessed income.

At the outset, ld. AR placed on record order of the coordinate bench in assessee’s own case i.e. ITA Nos.6239/M/14 and other connected appeals, order dated 16-10-2015, wherein under similar facts and circumstances penalty was reduced to 100% of tax sought to be evaded. The precise observation of the Tribunal was as under :- 18. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as the decision of the Tribunal in the first round of the proceedings dated 29.8.2012 (supra), as well as the relevant material placed before us. On perusal of the said order of the Tribunal (supra), wherein it is clearly mentioned that the AO is only required to follow the directions of the ITAT for computation of the amount of additions and the respective assessments were not set aside. Therefore, in this regard we agree with the view taken by the CIT (A) while upholding the penalty orders passed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of all the assessment years under consideration. Accordingly, the decision taken by CIT (A) vide paras 5.6 and 5.7 of his order is fair and reasonable. However, as contended by the Ld Counsel for the assessee the penalty levied by the AO @ 200% of the tax to be evaded by reason of concealment of income is on higher side and therefore, considering the factual matrix of the present case, we direct the AO to restrict the penalty to 100% of the tax to be evaded instead of 200% levied by him, which in our considered opinion would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed.