TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1618X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t justified on the ground that the assessee has though made disclosure but failed to specify the manner in which such income had been derived. Hon'ble Tribunal further held that no definition could be given to the "specified manner" and there is no prescribed method given in the statute to indicate the manner in which income was generated. The assessee has specified and substantiated the manner of earning the income and has not violated any of the conditions specified u/s 271AAA(2), for granting immunity from penalty. We therefore hold that no penalty u/s 271AAA could be levied in the present case. Accordingly we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No.109/Chd/2015, ITA No.108 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2010. Sh. Sanjeev Goel, the assessee was one of the persons covered. The assessee filed his return of income declaring total income of ₹ 2,12,36,310/- on 29.09.2011. Assessment was completed on 31.01.2013 at a total income of ₹ 2,46,78,850/-. Penalty was initiated u/s 271AAA against the surrendered income of ₹ 1,50,00,000/- and penalty of ₹ 15,00,000/- was levied vide order dated 30.07.2013. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee pleaded that the penalty levied u/s 271AAA was unjustified since the assessee had himself surrendered a sum of ₹ 1,50,00,000/- for the whole Nector Group and specifically surrendered a sum of ₹ 1,50,00,000/- against himself and also stated the source of surrendered income being deri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30.03.2012 ACIT (OSD) vs. Kanakia Spaces P. Ltd. (IT Appeal No. 6763 (Mum.) of 2011 dated 10.07.2013 5. After considering the assessee submissions Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty levied by holding that the facts of the present case were covered by various decisions of Hon'ble ITAT. 6. Aggrieved by the same, the revenue filed present the appeal before us. 7. Before us Ld. DR argued that the assessee had not fulfilled the condition provided u/s 271AAA for grant of immunity from penalty. Ld. DR argued that the manner in which the income was derived was neither specified nor substantiated. Ld. DR stated that the complete details of the parties with whom the real estate transactions had been entered into, their names, addresses, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s income as being derived from speculative dealings in commodities in oral dealings, outside the books of accounts. It is further not in dispute that the assessee had disclosed the surrendered income in its return of income and paid the taxes thereon. In the above factual background, it is to be seen whether penalty u/s 271AAA is leviable. It is the contention of the Revenue that though admittedly, the assessee has surrendered an income of ₹ 1,50,00,000/- during the course of search and seizure operation, disclosed the manner of earning the same being from speculative dealings in commodities and also disclosed the income in its return of income, the assessee had not substantiated the manner of earning the undisclosed income and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rrendered certain income for the relevant assessment years in the statements during the course of search and filed returns declaring the same pursuant to notice under section 153A and which returns have been accepted by the AO, levy of penalty under section 271 AAA was not justified on the ground that the assessee has though made disclosure but failed to specify the manner in which such income had been derived. Hon'ble Tribunal further held that no definition could be given to the specified manner and there is no prescribed method given in the statute to indicate the manner in which income was generated. It has been held in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Dy. CIT [2013] 33 taxmann.com 652 (Ctk.) that when assessee disclosed conce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
