Dismissing the appeal, that the Tribunal stated that the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed and the appeal filed by the Department was dismissed. However, this was incorrect because the order had to be read as a whole particularly paragraphs 6 and 7 of the order. It was clear that the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessee was liable to penalty under section\u00a0271(1)(c)\u00a0. After holding that the assessee was liable to penalty under section\u00a0271(1)(c)\u00a0of the Act, the Tribunal had proceeded to consider the question whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in giving a direction to the Assessing Officer to levy penalty under section\u00a0271AAA\u00a0of the Act. After considering the effect of the provision, the Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not have the power to give a direction to the Assessing Officer to levy penalty under section\u00a0271AAA\u00a0of the Act on the undisclosed income and accordingly set aside that direction. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee stood allowed only to that extent and did not amount to deletion of the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section\u00a0271(1)(c)\u00a0of the Act by order dated June 27, 2011. Hence, the Tribunal had rightly observed that when the Tribunal held that the penalty could not be levied under section\u00a0271AAA\u00a0of the Act, it was automatic that the levy of penalty made under section\u00a0271(1)(c)\u00a0of the Act was confirmed. The Tribunal further observed that the assessee had not challenged the levy of penalty under section\u00a0271(1)(c) .( AY.2008-09)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty \u2013 Concealment \u2013 Search and seizure -Block assessment – Penalty confirmed \u2013 Direction by CIT(A) regarding levy of penalty under S. 271AAA was rightly deleted by the Tribunal- Assessee has not challenged the levy of penalty u\/s 271(1)( c ) of the Act . [ S. 153A,251, 271AAA]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14334","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-3Jc","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14334","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14334"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14334\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14335,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14334\/revisions\/14335"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14334"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14334"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14334"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}