TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The ld.CIT(A) has rightly appreciated the facts and rightly deleted the penalty. We do not see any reason to interfere in the order of the ld.CIT(A), hence, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. - ITA No.2101/Ahd/2014 - - - Dated:- 3-4-2017 - SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Revenue : Shri Kailesh D. Rathod, Sr.DR For The Assessee : Shri Rajesh Upadhyay ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against order of the ld.CIT(A)-II, Ahmedabad dated 15.5.2014 passed for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. Solitary grievance of the Revenue is that the ld.CIT(A) has deleted penalty of ₹ 10,47,500/-imposed by the AO under section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Brief facts of the case are that a search and operation was carried out at the premises of the assessee on 24.9.2008. She has filed her return of income on 29.9.2009 declaring total income at ₹ 121,78,685/-. The statement of her husband Shri Shailesh G. Patel was recorded under section 132 (4) of the Act. In his statement, he has declared undisclosed income of ₹ 2.00 crores and offere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me was also unaccounted and undisclosed but the appellant admitted that it pertained to A.Y. 2008-09. It has also been admitted by the appellant in her statement that ₹ 98,74,830/- was received by cheque which was deposited in the bank account of her son Shri Nishit Shaileshbhai Patel and this amount was transferred to State Bank of Saurashtra and fixed deposits were made from that amount. The AR has contended that all the three conditions are fulfilled and no penalty u/s. 271AAA is attracted in view of the judgements relied upon:- 1. Ashokkurnar Sharma Ors. V. DCIT [2012] 149 TTJ 33 Tri. Cuttak 2. DCIT v. Pioneer Marbles and Interiors Pvt. Ltd. 14 ITR 608 Kolkata. 3. Pramodkumar Jain v. DCIT, 149 TTJ 36 Cuttak. On careful perusal of the facts, it is observed that -the conditions envisaged in Section 271AAA[2] are fulfilled in the case. The provisions of Section 271 AAA are reproduced as under- 271 AAA. [1] The Assessing Officer may, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, direct that, in a case where search has been initiated under Sec. 132 on or after the 1st day of June, 2007 [but before the 1st day of July 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not attracted. Reliance is placed on the following decisions:- Reliance is placed on following court decisions where the Hon'ble courts have held that:- i) ................if no specific question is posed by the authorized officer during the search about the manner of earning of declared income, there would be substantial compliance if the income is declared and taxes thereon paid. [Mahendra C Shah [2008] 299 ITR 305 Guj] ii) It is not expected from a person to make statement suo-moto about the manner of earning the income unless he is specifically asked by the authorized officer but even if it is stated subsequently, that will amount to the compliance of explanation 5[2] of Sec. 271(1)(c). In absence of any specific statement about manner of earning income, it can be inferred that undisclosed income was derived from business which he was carrying on or from other sources. The objection of provision is achieved by making statement admitting non disclosure of money, bullion, jewelry, etc. [RadhakishanGoyal278ITR454-Alld.H.C.] It is seen that the judgements of Mahendra C Shah and Radhakishan Goyal both were delivered in the context of Sec. 271(1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iors P. Ltd. 1326/Kol/2011 Similar verdict has been given in following recent court decisions:- a) Neerat Singhal v. ACIT, C.C.13, New Delhi [2013] 37 Taxman.com 189 Del. Tri. b) Concrete Developers v. ACIT, C.C. 2[2], [2013] 34 Taxman.com 62 Nagpur Thus, taking into account, the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the legal position, I am of the view that the Assessing Officer was not justified the penalty u/s. 271AAA. The same is directed to be deleted. The appellant gets relief. The Grounds of Appeal are disposed off accordingly. In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed. 5. The ld.DR. while impugning the order of the CIT(A) contended that the assessee has not made any disclosure during the course of search, because her statement was not recorded under section 132(4) of the Act. The amount of ₹ 1,04,75,000/- received by the assessee as on-money was deposited in the bank account of her son. It is not demonstrated whether the assessee was the vendor of the plot or not. Thus, she failed to substantiate the manner of alleged undisclosed income. On the other hand, the ld.counsel for the assessee relied upon the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
