K.S.JHAVERI,J. - (1.) By way of the appeals, the department has assailed the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee and dismissed the appeal of department where CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.
(2.) This Court while admitting the appeal framed following substantial questions of law:- "(i) Whether the ITAT has erred in law and on face by holding that the time limit prescribed for completion of penalty proceedings under Section 275(1)(a) is applicable and not 275(1) (c). (ii) Whether the ITAT has erred in law in holding that in quantum appeal, the CIT(A) as well as ITAT has not considered the nature of transaction and has given wrong findings."
(3.) The brief facts of the case are that a search under Section 132 of the Act was carried out at the assessee's business premises and residential premises of its members, during which stock-intrade, valuables, cash, jewellery, documents, books of accounts and/or loose papers were found and seized. During the course of assessment proceedings under section 153A r.w. section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act the assessing officer initiated the penalty proceedings on 30/12/2009. Meanwhile the assessee went in appeal against the additions made by the assessing officer. The order of the CIT(A) was received on 30/3/2011 against which further appeal was filed before the ITAT. The order of ITAT was received on 14/2/2012. In the meantime a reference was made to the Addl. CIT, central range, Jaipur for imposing penalty under section 271E of the Income Tax Act 1961. Show cause notice was issued vide letter dated 24/2/2012 by the Addl. CIT and penalty amounting Rs. 1,77,00,000/- was imposed by order dated 30/3/2012.;