GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (7) TMI 121 - ITAT PUNE

2015 (7) TMI 121 - ITAT PUNE - TMI - Penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) - undisclosed income in the hands of director - CIT(A) deleted penalty levy - Held that:- CIT(A) deleted the penalty holding that the profit offered to tax by the directors of the different companies including the assessee in their hands in fact belongs to the said companies which have been earned by the said companies from their manufacturing activity. Therefore, such income has to be taxed in the hands of the respective companie .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ction u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. No infirmity in the above finding given by the Ld.CIT(A).

Even in the hands of the company, the assessee in principle has not accepted the result of such unaccounted sale which has been categorically stated by Shri Ghanshyam C. Goyal in his reply to Question No.4. As per the provisions of Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) penalty cannot be levied if search took place on or after 01-06-2007 and the assessee is found to be the owner of any asset s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

not taken any benefit out of the amount disclosed. The tax paid on such undisclosed income has gone waste as no benefit out of such income has been availed by the assessee. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A - Decided in favour of assessee.

Penalty proceedings u/s.271AAA - assessee has declared an amount of ₹ 1,63,58,750/- being Hundi, petty loans, sales receivable etc. - CIT(A) delet .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e find no infirmity in his order cancelling the penalty levied u/s.271AAA of the I.T. Act. See CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel (2005 (4) TMI 47 - ALLAHABAD High Court) and DCIT Vs. Pioneer Marbles & Interiors Pvt. Ltd. [2012 (2) TMI 261 - ITAT, KOLKATA] - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA Nos.1433 and 1432/PN/2013, ITA Nos.1441 and 1442/PN/2013, ITA No.1437/PN/2013, ITA No.1439 /PN/2013, ITA Nos.1446 and 1447/PN/2013, ITA No.1448/PN/2013 - Dated:- 26-6-2015 - Shri R.K. Panda and Shri Vikas Awasthy, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in the case of Shri Arun S. Agrawal for A.Y. 2007-08 as the lead case. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual. A search action u/s.132 of the I.T. Act was conducted on 16-06-2009 at the business and residential premises of different members/associate concerns of the Kalika group of Jalna. The assessee s premises was also covered. In response to notice u/s.153A the assessee filed return of income on 18-07-2011 declaring total income at ₹ 42,67,042/- and agric .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d income u/s.132 during the year though there is no such direct evidence of such sales were noticed or such sales were made by the assessee company/Director. The assessee has declared income in order to buy peace, to avoid litigation and paid the tax according & honoured the declaration. The Assessing Officer therefore noted that this income declared by the assessee was resultant of search action. Had the search not taken place the assessee would not have shown this income. He therefore held .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e. 5.3 The assessee has never filed inaccurate particulars & not hidden any material facts. 5.4 The assessee has not concealed any income with the intention to evade tax & in guilt mind. The penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be levied only when there must be concealment or there must be inaccurate particulars of income. To avoid litigation, the assessee agreed for addition. 5.5 The assessee also relies upon the latest judgment given by the Supreme Court in CIT vs Reliance Petro-products Pvt. Ltd .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nshyam Goyal reiterated the declaration of income and gave detailed bifurcation of the income declared at ₹ 14 crores. In reply to question No.4 of the said statement Shri Ghanshyam Goyal declared an amount of ₹ 19,57,468/- as undisclosed income in the hands of Shri Arun S. Agrawal, i.e. the assessee for A.Y. 2007-08. He observed that the declaration of income made by Shri Ghanshyam Goyal was on account of profit earned on unaccounted sale determined by DGCE in the cases of Kalika St .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

He further observed that although the assessee and the group as such have cooperated during assessment proceedings it does not give immunity from imposition of penalty for concealing of income. Rejecting the explanation given by the assessee and distinguishing the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd., (Supra) cited before him the Assessing Officer levied penalty of ₹ 6,58,884/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act being 100% of tax sought to be ev .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Pvt. Ltd. for A.Ys.2006-07 to 2010-11 vide orders dated 14/05/2012, the income from manufacturing activity of the companies is to be assessed in the hands of the said companies and not in the hands of the Directors. It was further argued that the CIT(A), Aurangabad has not allowed telescoping of profit of the said companies on account of alleged suppressed sale against the same profit offered to tax in the hands of the Directors as the status of the companies and Directors are different. It was .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act by observing as under : 8. I have carefully considered the facts of the case and rival contentions. It is undisputed fact that during the course of search & post search proceedings, the companies of Kalika Group have offered to tax profit on their alleged suppressed sale to buy peace of mind, which has been offered to tax in the hands of the Directors. The relevant portion of statement recorded on 17/08/2009 giving details of the said income offered i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lready debited. However, since the purchase of the raw material was not accounted for, hence the credit should be given to the assessee for the same. It is to be considered that the amount of Raw material is incurred @ 60-70% in the case of manufacturing of Ingots/Billets and that of 85-90% for the manufacturing of bars. Hence it would be reasonable to compute the GP @ 35% and 15% respectively of the unaccounted sale so effected. From the record of the company, it can be seen that the cost of th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

1 56810071.00 @15-8521511 3. Giriraj Re-Rolls Pvt. Ltd. 05-06 2225850.00 @35-779048 3794717.00 @35-1328151 4 Bhoomi Re-Rolls Pvt. Ltd. 07-08 3514942 @35-1230230 TOTAL 144760566.00 28079840 I want to state that I am disclosing the said amounts to buy peace of mind, however in principle, I am not accepting such result unaccounted sale. The details of the same are as follows - Sr.No Name of company Directors FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 1 Kalika Steel Alloys Pvt.Ltd. Ghanshyam G Goyal - 1957468 19438 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

es which have been earned by the said companies from their manufacturing activity. Therefore, the income from alleged suppressed sale is to be taxed in the hands of the companies and not the Directors. While deciding the quantum appeals in the cases of Kalika Steel Alloys Pvt. Ltd. for A.Ys.2004-05 to 2010-11 and Kalika Steel Jalna Pvt.Ltd. for A.Ys.2006- 07 to 2010-11 vide orders dated 14/05/2012, it has been held by the undersigned that the profit on suppressed sale of the companies is to be t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied by invoking either Explanation-1 or Explanation-5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In view of the above facts and discussion, I am of the considered view that as the income of ₹ 19,57,468/- is not assessable in the hands of the appellant but is assessable in the hands of the manufacturing companies, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not leviable in the case of the appellant. In view of the above facts and discussion, I am of the considered view that the A.O. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ry or other valuable article or thing, is found and it is found that the said asset was acquired out of income which was not disclosed; in the case of the appellant no such facts existed and the income has been offered during search action to buy peace of mind and to avoid protracted litigation. This contention of the appellant is not required to be adjudicated as the first contention of the appellant is accepted and penalty has been cancelled. Ground Nos. 2 & 3 are allowed. 8. Aggrieved wit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

himself in the return of income, which renders the decision perverse on facts and in law. 3) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, delete, and amend any of the grounds, as per the circumstances of the case. 4) The appellant prays leave to adduce such further evidence to substantiate its case, as the occasion may demand. 9. The Ld. Departmental Representative strongly opposed the order of the CIT(A) cancelling the penalty. Referring to the statement of Shri Ghanshyam Goyal recorded u .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t discrepancies of partners, directors or any other assessee of this group. He submitted that the income declared by these assessees is on account of income earned by them and not on account of discrepancies found in the case of the companies. Thus, the assessee has not explained the source of income and merely to buy peace of mind has declared the income without substantiating the source of the same. Therefore, the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act is clearly attracted. He accordingly submi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s.131 of the I.T. Act by the search party on 17-08- 2009, a copy of which is placed at pages 18 to 30 of the paper book, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the reply of the assessee to Question No.4 wherein the gross profit of various companies are worked out on alleged clandestine removal of goods for the F.Yrs. 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 at ₹ 2,80,79,840/-. Referring to the said statement he drew the attention of the Bench to the income declared in the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eclared by these individuals in A.Yrs. 2006-07 to 2008-09 on which penalty u/s.271(1)(c) has been levied is the income on account of alleged clandestine removal of goods by these companies which has been offered in the hands of the individuals. He submitted that it is also clear from the above that the income offered by these individuals in A.Y. 2010-11 is on account of their personal income earned by them which is clearly mentioned in Question No.50 of the statement recorded u/s.132(4) on which .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

particulars of income has been concealed by the assessee, therefore, penalty cannot be levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act on this issue and therefore the CIT(A) was fully justified in cancelling the penalty. 11. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the Assessing Officer has levied penalty by applying the provisions of section 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. He submitted that Explanation 5A is applicable where search takes place on or after 01-06-2007, i.e. from A.Y .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

party and the reply thereof he submitted that no such facts existed and the assessee in his statement recorded u/s.132(4) has categorically stated that he is offering the income to buy peace of mind and to avoid protracted litigation. Relying on various decisions the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that if the assessee filed return of income in response to notice u/s.153A, declared undisclosed income and the return was accepted by the Assessing Officer (except small amount of bank interes .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

299 ITR 305 6. CIT Vs. Kirit Dahyabhai Patel (2009) 121 ITD 159 7. CIT Vs. Shri Inderchand Surajmal Bothra - ITA No.137/PN/2010 order dated 30-11-2011. 11.1 He submitted that when the income has been declared u/s.132(4) with the condition that no penalty should be levied then the statement should be accepted in totality and not in part. He submitted that during the course of search the statement of Shri Ghanshyam Goyal was recorded u/s.132(4) in the presence of Shri Naresh B. Jindal, Shri Arun S .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of income to withdraw the claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) with the clear understanding and assurance that no penalty is to be levied the Department cannot accept one part of the declaration, i.e., filing of the revised return of income withdrawing the claim and ignore the other part of income, i.e. assuring not to levy penalty. 13. Referring to the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kiran and Company reported in 217 ITR 326 he submitted that the Hon ble High Court .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

5 TTJ (Ahd) 611 3. Amit Chand Vs. Ito (1994) 49 ITD 606 He accordingly submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly deleted the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act and therefore the grounds raised by the Revenue should be dismissed. 14. The Ld. Departmental Representative in his rejoinder submitted that after disclosing the additional income the assessee has not filed the balance sheet as to the manner of its utilisation. So far as the conditional offer is concerned the Ld. Departmental Rep .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ook filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find in the instant case a search took place in the residential premises of different persons/associate concerns of the Kalika group of Jalna. The statement of Shri Ghanshyam C. Goyal, who is the main person of the group, was recorded u/s.132(4) of the I.T. Act in which he has declared undisclosed income of ₹ 14 crores in the name of 4 persons @ ₹ 3.5 crores each, the details of whi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ue of the goods so removed shall be unaccounted income of the assessee. Please comment. Ans:- I deny contention of DGCI that the members of Kalika group as mentioned in Q.No.2 had clandestinely removed the products. Even if it is assumed that such products are removed then a fact may be considered that all indirect expenses were already debited. However, since the purchase of the raw material was not accounted for, hence the credit should be given to the assessee for the same. It is to be consid .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

accepted 35% and 15% respectively, the unaccounted income would be as follows - Sr. No. Name of company F.Y. Amount of goods removed GP% as Undisclosed income 1 Kalika Steel Alloys Pvt.Ltd. 06-07 11185330.00 @35-3914936 11107800.00 @35-3887730 2 Kalika Steel Jalna Pvt. Ltd. 06-07 16167552.00 @15-2425133 39954004.00 @i5-5993101 56810071.00 @15-8521511 3 Giriraj Re-Rolls Pvt. Ltd. 05-06 2225850.00 @35-779048 3794717.00 @35-1328151 4 Bhoomi Re-Rolls Pvt. Ltd. 07-08 3514942 @35-1230230 TOTAL 1447605 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

m G Goyal 779048 - 1328152 4 Bhoomi Re- Rolls Pvt.Ltd. Anil Goyal - 615115 Sunil Goyal - 615115 TOTAL 6772150 6340070 1,49,6 7,624 15.2 Similarly we find in reply to Question No.16 of the said statement he has given the bifurcation of the amount of ₹ 14,01,61,595/- the details of which are as under : Q.No.16 Would you like to say anything further? Ans: Yes, want to state that as a result of the search action I am offering the amount of ₹ 14,01,61,595/-. The details of the same are as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

unted Income from badla transaction (Question No.10) 85,10,000 8. Unaccounted transactions as explained (Question No.13) 6,54,35,000 TOTAL 14,01,61,595 The assessee declared an amount of ₹ 19,57,468/- as undisclosed income for the impugned assessment year which is a part of unaccounted sale of the companies at ₹ 2,80,79,844/- and which has been accepted by the Assessing Officer in the return of income. However, he initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act read with .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d proposition of law that in order to levy penalty u/s.271(1)(c) there has to be income of the assessee in respect of which particulars have been concealed. Since in the instant case it is not the income of the assessee and the income belongs to that of the respective companies, therefore, penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act cannot be levied by invoking either Explanation 1 or Explanation 5A to provisions of section u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. He accordingly deleted the addition. We do not .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ables etc or owner of any income based of any entry in books of account and he claims that such entry in the books of accounts represents his income. Therefore, in the instant case although the search has taken place after 01-06-2007, however, the fact remains that in view of second limb of the Explanation 5A no penalty can be levied if the assessee does not claim that such an entry represents his income. In the instant case the income declared and accepted by the assessee in the return filed in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Explanation 5A. The order of the CIT(A) is therefore upheld and the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 16. Similar penalty of ₹ 6,63,642/- has been deleted by CIT(A) in A.Y. 2008-09 for which Revenue has filed appeal vide ITA No.1432/PN/2013. Facts being similar, therefore, following same reasonings, the appeal filed by the Revenue for A.Y. 2008-09 is also dismissed. ITA Nos. 1441 & 1442/PN/2013-Shri Ghanshyam C. Goyal - (A.Yrs. 2007-08 & 2008-09) : ITA Nos.1446, & 14 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

,871/- 16,67,256/- 18. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A) the Revenue is in appeal before us. 19. After hearing both the sides, we find the facts of the above appeals are identical to the facts in ITA No.1433/PN/2013. We have already decided the issue and the order of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty has been upheld. Following the same reasoninigs, the order of the CIT(A) in the above appeals are also upheld and the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. ITA No.1439/PN/2013 - Shri Gopa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

chase, sales receivable etc. The Assessing Officer accepted the income so declared and thereafter initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271AAA. The assessee in response to the same submitted that during the course of search the group has declared additional income of ₹ 14 crores in the hands of different members. The assessee had already declared such income u/s.132(4) and paid taxes. It has also cooperated during the course of search and declared undisclosed income which was calculated on the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o the notice of the Assessing Officer according to which penalty cannot be levied u/s.271AAA if the assessee admits in the course of proceedings u/s.132(4) any undisclosed income and paid taxes together with interest on such income and specifies and substantiates the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived. It was argued that the assessee fulfils the conditions for immunity from penalty u/s.271AAA and therefore the proceedings should be dropped. 21. However, the Assessing Officer was .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o declared in the profit and loss account as income from other sources. This according to the Assessing Officer shows that the income declared was not supported by any asset on the date of search, therefore, the income declared has to be considered as not substantiated. The Assessing Officer accordingly imposed penalty of ₹ 16,35,875/- u/s.271AAA of the I.T. Act. 22. Before CIT(A) the assessee submitted that the group has declared major amount of ₹ 7,39,74,375/- in the hands of the d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

5 23. Referring to the above table it was submitted that the assessee has declared an amount of ₹ 1,63,58,750/- being Hundi, petty loans, sales receivable etc. Relying on various decisions it was submitted that the assessee fulfils the conditions prescribed u/s.271AAA for immunity from penalty and therefore the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer should be deleted. 24. Based on the arguments advanced by the assessee the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer by o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

earch action. On the other hand the appellant has claimed that the said income offered to tax has been invested in/supported by the assets mentioned in the seized material found; the said income has been credited to profit & loss account and reflected in capital account appearing in the balance sheet filed with the return of income; the assets in the balance sheet are sourced out of capital account and liabilities appearing in the other side of the balance sheet. The AR of the appellant has .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

search has been initiated u/s 132 on or after the 1st day of June 2007, the assessee shall pay by way of penalty,, in addition to tax, if any, payable by him, a sum computed @10% of the undisclosed income of the specified previous year (2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply if the assessee,- (i) in the course of search, in a statement under sub-section (4) of section 132 admits the undisclosed income and specifies the manner in which such income has been derived; (ii) substantiates .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

search under section 132, which has - (A) not been recorded on or before the date of search in the books of account or other documents mentioned in the normal course relating to such previous year; or (B) otherwise not been disclosed to the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner before the date of search; or (ii) any income of the specified previous year represented, either wholly or partly, by any entry in respect of expense recorded in books of account or documents maintained in the normal course .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in which the search was conducted." 8.2 From the above provision of the Act it has been noticed that the term "specified manner" has not been defined or explained in this section, however, the term "undisclosed income" has been explained. It has also been noticed that the appellant has filed return of income declaring the said "undisclosed income" under the head "Declaration u/s 132(4) of the Act" and the A.O. has assessed the same as declared. Furthe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssessee having disclosed concealed income while giving statement u/s 132 (4) during the course of search and paid tax thereon and showed the said undisclosed income in the return under the head "Income from Business" which has been accepted by the Department, penalty u/s 271AAA is not leviable. (b) Pramod Kumar Tain Vs. DCIT (2012V 77 DTR 244 (Ctk.Trib.) In this case, it has been held that the assessee having surrendered certain income for the relevant assessment year in the statements .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ge of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked, either by authorized officer or by the A.O., to substantiate manner in which such undisclosed income was derived. Under these circumstances, the assessee be deemed to have discharged his onus of substantiating the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived by him. 8.3 It is worth mentioning here that the Hon'ble Cuttack Bench of ITAT in the case of Pramod Kumar Jain Vs. DCIT (2012) 77 DTK 244 has laid down that "the Ld. Couns .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Assessing Officer, after the search only can initiate penalty u/s 271AAA when these three conditions together are not satisfied. Penal provisions are punitive and not part of tax structure in so far as the intention of the legislation was not to take 10% over and above the tax as a matter of levy of penalty u/s 271AAA automatically." The Hon'ble Cuttack Bench of ITAT has further stated that the said provisions of sub-section (2) of section 271AAA does not become redundant as claimed by .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ions of surrendering the income during the search action, offering the said income in return of income and payment of tax have been undisputedly fulfilled and the A.O, has accepted the undisclosed income offered to tax in return as declared. 8.4 In view of the above facts and discussion and in view of the ratio laid down in the above referred decisions, I am of the considered view that the A.O, is not justified in holding that the appellant has not substantiated the income declared at the time o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty of ₹ 16,35,875/- imposed u/s 271AAAof the Act. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that on the date of search, the income declared by the assessee was not represented by any asset. 3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in relying upon the decisions of Hon'ble ITAT, Cuttack Bench, and Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmeda .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n law. 5) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, delete, and amend any of the grounds, as per the circumstances of the case. 6) The appellant prays leave to adduce such further evidence to substantiate its case, as the occasion may demand. 26. The Ld. Departmental Representative heavily relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. 27. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee while supporting the order of the CIT(A) submitted that the assessee during the course of search in his statement reco .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

manner in which such undisclosed income has been derived and to substantiate the same. Referring to Question No.50 he submitted that the search party has simply asked the assessee to say anything else for availing the benefit of section 271AAA. After Shri Ghanshyam Goyal declared additional income of ₹ 14 crores for the group no further question was asked regarding the manner in which undisclosed income has been derived and about its substantiation. 28. Referring to various decisions he s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nalty levied u/s.271AAA has been deleted. 1. Neerat Singal Vs. ACIT (2013) 37 TAxmann.com 189 (Delhi Tribunal) 2. Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. DCIT (2013 33 TAxmann.com 652 (Cuttack Tribunal (2012) 149 TTJ 33 (Cuttack Tribunal) 3. Pramod Kumar Jain Vs. DCIT (2013) 33 Taxmann.com 651/(2012) 149 TTJ 63 (Cuttack Tribunal) 4. Rajendra Prasad Dokania Vs. DIT - ITA No.525/Ahd/2012 dated 04-05-2012 5. ACIT Vs. Munish Kumar Goyal (2014) 45 TAxmann.com 563 (Chandigarh Tribunal) 6. ACIT Vs. M/s. Kanakia Spaces .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the course of search an amount of ₹ 14 crores was declared by Shri Ghanshyam Goyal the main person of the group in the hands of 4 different persons @ ₹ 3.5 crores each, the details of which are already given at para 15 of the impugned order. In response to Question No.16 the bifurcation of the declared income was given which amounts to ₹ 14,01,61,595/-. The break-up of ₹ 6,54,35,000/- and ₹ 85,10,000/- totalling to ₹ 7,39,74,375/- has already been given at par .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

en derived. It is the case of the assessee that in his statement during the course of search, he has clearly specified the manner in which such income has been derived and has substantiated the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived. 30. From the statement recorded during the course of search from the main person of the group Shri Ghanshyam C. Goyal and subsequent statement recorded u/s.131 we find the authorised officer has not raised any query regarding the manner in which undisclo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of statement u/s.132(4) about the manner in which undisclosed income has been derived and about its substantiation. The Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Munish Kumar Goyal (Supra) has held that where the assessee surrendered certain income in the course of search, filed the return disclosing the said amount and paid taxes thereon, there was sufficient compliance of provisions of section 271AAA(2) and penalty u/s.271AAA is not leviable. 32. We find the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ITR 305) the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court considered similar statement under section 132(4) to grant immunity under section 271(1)(c). The Hon'ble High Court held as under:- "When the statement is being recorded by the authorized officer it is incumbent upon the authorized officer to explain the provisions of Explanation 5 in entirety to the assessee concerned and the authorized officer cannot stop short at a particular stage so as to permit the Revenue to take advantage of such a lap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

conditions stipulated in the second exception while making statement under section 132(4). Even if the statement does not specify the manner in which the income is derived, if the income is declared and tax thereon paid, there would be substantial compliance not warranting any further denial of the benefit." 4.1 In this case, the assessee was asked to explain the entries in the 'work-in-progress sheet' and assessee in the course of statement offered the income with a plea not to ini .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in the above referred case. In view of the above principles laid down, we are of the opinion that immunity provided under s/s.(2) of section 271AAA is applicable and accordingly, the order of CIT(A) does not require any modification. Revenue's grounds are rejected. 33. We find the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Pioneer Marbles & and Interiors Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) has held that penalty u/s.271AAA could not be levied where assessee paid entire tax and interest within time limit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version