M/S. SPAZE TOWERS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the application filed under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountnat Member & Shri Kuldip Singh

153C following searc- ch income was not disclosed in original return, it was a clear case of concealment of ncome attracting penalty under section 271(1 )(c); in such a case it was not even necessary to invoke Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) 5. CIT Vs S J Prasad (2008) 220 CTR 169(KER.) where Hon’ble Kerala

M/S. SPAZE TOWERS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the application filed under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountnat Member & Shri Kuldip Singh

153C following searc- ch income was not disclosed in original return, it was a clear case of concealment of ncome attracting penalty under section 271(1 )(c); in such a case it was not even necessary to invoke Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) 5. CIT Vs S J Prasad (2008) 220 CTR 169(KER.) where Hon’ble Kerala

AYUSH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

AYUSH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

AKSHAY GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

ASHISH MITTAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

ASHISH MITTAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

KUNAL GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

ASHISH MITTAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

KUNAL GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

AKSHAY GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

ASHISH MITTAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

AYUSH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

ASHISH MITTAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

AKSHAY GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

ASHISH MITTAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

ASHHISH MITTAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 vs. SHRI ANKUR AGGARWAL

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

153C are intended to be a complete code for post- search assessments. Considering that the non-obstante clause under Section 153A excludes the application of, inter alia, Section 139, it is clear that the ITA 463/2016 & CONNECTED CASES Page 14 revised return filed under Section 153A takes the place of the original return under Section 139, for the purposes

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 vs. SHRI ANKUR AGGARWAL

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

153C are intended to be a complete code for post- search assessments. Considering that the non-obstante clause under Section 153A excludes the application of, inter alia, Section 139, it is clear that the ITA 463/2016 & CONNECTED CASES Page 14 revised return filed under Section 153A takes the place of the original return under Section 139, for the purposes