आयकरअपील(cid:547)यअ(cid:876)धकरण,राजकोटÛयायपीठ,राजकोट।

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/.ITA No.76 to 80/RJT/2022 (cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रणवष (cid:91) /Assessment Year: 2008-09 to 2012-13 AND आयकरअपीलसं/.ITA No. 81/RJT/2022 (cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रणवष (cid:91) /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya Assistant Commissioner of

3^rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara बनाम Income-tax, Central Circle-2 Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Vs. Rajkot, 2^nd Floor, Amruta PAN : AAMPL 3903 F Estate, M.G. Rad, Rajkot-360

001 :

(अपीलाथ(cid:568)/Assessee) ((cid:292)×यथ(cid:568)/Respondent) (cid:467)नधा(cid:91)(cid:464)रती क(cid:551) ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Mehul Ranpura, AR राजèव क(cid:551) ओर से/Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR सुनवाई क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख /Date of Hearing : 05/03/2025 घोषणा क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख /Date of Pronouncement : 30/04/2025 ORDER Per Bench, Captioned six appeals filed by the assessee, pertaining to the Assessment years (AYs) 2008-09 to 2012-13 and AY 2014-15, are directed against the separate orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (“ld.CIT(A)” for short) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short), which in turn arise out of separate penalty orders, passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) and 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act.

2. The assessee`s appeals in ITA Nos.76 to 80/RJT/2022, relates to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and appeal in ITA No.81/RJT/2022 relates to penalty u/s 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act.

3. Since the issue involved in all these appeals are common and identical, therefore, we have clubbed these six appeals and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity.

4. First, we sell adjudicate, the assessee`s five appeals in ITA Nos.76 to 80/RJT/2022, which relate to the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated in ITA No. 76/RJT/2022, for assessment Year 2008-09, have been taken into consideration for deciding the above appeals en masse. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, in ITA No.76/RJT/2022, “lead” case, are as follows:

1.The grounds of appeal mentioned hereunder are without prejudice to one another.

2.The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad erred on facts as also in law in confirming levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred as to the "Act"] at Rs.35,55,728/-on the alleged ground that the assessee has not disclosed the income earned of Rs.1,04,61,096/- from the undisclosed foreign account either in the return of income filed u/s.139(1) or 153A of the Act. The penalty confirmed is totally unjustified on facts as also in law and may kindly be deleted.

3.The Id. CIT(A) erred on facts as also in law in confirming penalty of Rs.61,182/- on deemed rental income of Rs.1,80,000/-. The penalty confirmed is totally unjustified on facts as also in law and may kindly be deleted.

4.The Id. CIT(A) erred on facts as also in law in confirming penalty on Rs.1,01,970/- on disallowance made of Rs.3,00,000/-u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act, being commission paid to Rajesh Bhatt on the alleged ground that assessee had wrongly claimed the said amount as expenses without deducting TDS. The penalty confirmed is totally unjustified on facts was also in law and may kindly be deleted.

5. The relevant material facts, as culled out from the material on record, are as follows. The assessee, before us, is an in individual and has originally filed return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, on 30.09.2008, declaring total income of Rs.2,66,40,980/-. In this case, search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act, was carried out at the residential, as well as business premises of the assessee, on 20.05.2013. Thereafter, in response to the notice u/s 153A of the Act, dated 10.10.2013, the assessee filed