9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1618X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e heard these appeals together and disposed the same by this common order 2. The only issue arises for consideration is with regard to levy of penalty under section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. We shall deal with the facts and figures in ITA No. 109/Chd/2015 wherein the Revenue has raised the following grounds: 1. "Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the total penalty amounting to Rs. 15,00,000/- levied u/s 271AAA of the Act imposed by the A.O. without appreciating the facts of the cases." 2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in granting relief to the assessee when even the basic retirement of the section 271AAA is not fulfill ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sure / surrender of income at the time of search did not fall under the definition of undisclosed income as it could not be related to any asset, document / entry found during the course of search. The assessee therefore pleaded that no penalty under section 271AAA could be levied on the assessee. The assessee placed reliance on the following judicial decisions in support of his contention. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Patiala vs. Munish Kumar Goyal [2014] 45 taxman.com 563 (Chandigarh - Trib.) Chandigarh Bench 'A'-- Jurisdictional Hon'ble ITAT Assistant Commissioner of Income tax vs. A.N. Annamalaisamy (HUF) [2013] 38 taxmann.com 440 (Chennai- Trib) in the ITAT Chennai Bench 'C' Pramod Kumar Ja ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as also accepted by the A.O. Ld. AR also submitted that the manner of earning the said income had been disclosed being from various speculative real estate transactions. Further Ld. AR stated that the income had been duly disclosed and due taxes thereon paid by the assessee. Thus, Ld. AR argued that there was no case for levy of penalty u/s 271AAA. Ld. AR also stated that since the surrendered income did not relate to any asset, or document or entry found during the course of search u/s 132 it could not be treated as undisclosed income and therefore, no penalty u/s 271AAA was leviable. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and the perused the orders of the authorities below. 9. The undisputed facts in the present case are that during the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the case of CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel (2005) 278 ITR 454 observed that non disclosure of manner of earning the undisclosed income is not relevant for the purpose of availing benefit under Explanation 5 below section 271(1)(c). In CIT vs. Mahendra C. Shah [2008] 215 CTR 493 (Guj.), it was held the assessee having declared the value of diamonds in his statement under section 132(4) and paid taxes thereon before assessment, was entitled to immunity from penalty under section 271(l)(c) under Explanation 5 thereof even though the statement did not specify the manner in which the income representing value of diamonds was derived. With respect to such requirement in relation to section 271AAA, it has been held in the case of Pramod Kumar Jain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
