TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e admitted by the assessee has been offered for tax in the return of income and the tax thereof duly paid, penalty cannot be levied, specifically, in the absence of any question in this respect by the AO. Reasons pointed out by the CIT(A) are justifiable for deleting the penalty levied u/s 271 AAA - Decided against Revenue - ITA No.1052/Ahd/2012 - - - Dated:- 20-7-2012 - SHRI D. K. TYAGI AND A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, JJ. Appellant by Shri Rahul Kumar, Sr. DR ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY: This appeal is filed by the revenue aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A)-II, Surat in appeal No. CIT(A)-II/CC.3/139/2011-12 dated 16-03-2012 passed u/s 271AAA r.w.s 250 of the IT Act for assessment year 2009-10. 2. The re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tc. in the books of accounts, other documents, loose paper, hard disk, or in any assets etc. either in her hands or in the hands of her family members or relatives or employees of partnership firm or sister concerns or any of the company or its directors of the entire ground RS.24,92,800/- Total RS.50,00,000/- The assessee s case is therefore not covered under section 271AAA(2), the exemption provision of section 271AAA. The conditions and their status in assessee s case are as under:- Condition Fulfilled 1. In the course of the search, in a statement under sub-section (4) of section 132, admits the undisclosed income and specified the manner in which such income has been derived No 2. Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the search action not taken place, the assessee would not have come forward voluntarily to disclose the aforesaid income in her return of income. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the assessee has disclosed Rs.50,00,000/- during the course of search for which the assessee failed to specify the manner in which such income has been derived and also substantiate the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived. Therefore, section 271AAA (1) is clearly applicable in assessee s case. Hence, penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- @10% of disclosed income of Rs.50,00,000/- as specified in the section is imposed. Accordingly, the assessee is directed to pay, by way of penalty, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- within the stipulated date and time me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is further seen that in pursuance of the statement u/s. 132(4), the appellant has offered the income of Rs.50 lacs in the return of income of the current year and has even paid the tax thereon. Thus, the appellant s case is squarely covered by the decision of the jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT v. Mahendra C. Shah (2008) 299 ITR 305 (Guj) wherein it has been held that when the undisclosed income admitted by the assessee has been offered for tax in the return of income and the tax thereon is duly paid, penalty could not be levied on the ground that manner of earning the undisclosed income has not been specified, in absence of any question in this respect by the Authorized Officer. I also do not agree with the reas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the disclosure of Rs.50,00,000/- made during the course of search. 5. Now, the revenue is in appeal before us aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A) deleting the penalty levied by the learned AO. 6. The learned DR supported the order of the learned AO and prayed that the same may be sustained while none appeared on behalf of the assessee. 7. We have heard the submissions of the revenue and carefully perused the materials on record. The learned CIT(A) had deleted the penalty due to the following reasons: (1) The assessee had voluntarily disclosed the sum of Rs.50,00,000/- during the search proceedings with request that no penalty should be levied in respect of such disclosure. (2) During the post search proceedings no spe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
