9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1008X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... course of search cash of Rs. 54. 97 lakhs, kept into bank lockers standing in the name of the assessee, was seized. In the assessment completed, u/s. 143(3) of the Act, the AO brought to tax the seized cash as income from undisclosed sources holding that the assessee had failed to explain the sources of income of seized cash. He also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAA of the Act. 2. In the course of penalty proceedings, before the AO, the assessee argued that cash seized represented his professional income for the year under consideration, that same had been kept in the locker for safety purposes. However the AO did not consider the said explanation is tenable. He held that neither during the assessment nor during the penalty procee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m consultancy/ advocacy services were provided and the details of remuneration received, that the assessee showed his inability to give the required details, that all the conditions were clearly for escaping the rigours of penalty which had been cumulatively satisfied, that the assessee had not complied with all the conditions as stipulated in subsection (2)of section 271 AAA. Finally, he upheld the order of the AO. 4. Before us, the Authorised Representative(AR)argued that the assessee had fulfilled all the conditions stipulated in the section, that cash represented his professional income, that he had left the employment of Ispat four months before the seizure took place, that the assessee had paid taxes, that word 'substantiate' was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad substantiated the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived and that being so, the condition laid down by section 271 AAA (2) (ii) has been duly met. " In the case of Concrete Developers (supra) the Tribunal has held that where the assessee had disclosed certain amount during the course of search and had paid taxes thereon, filed return showing said income as business income and same had been accepted by the AO under the head 'business income', penalty u/s. 271 AAA was not leviable. In the case of Pramod Kumar Jain(33 taxmann. com651), it has been held by the Tribunal that there was no prescribed method to indicate the manner in which income was generated. Considering the facts that the assessee had paid taxes on the undisclos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
