TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 567X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een paid which is accepted by the Revenue Department. The issue is, therefore, covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench in the case of DCIT Vs. Sanjeev Goyal (supra). Following this order, we set aside the order of the authorities below and cancel the penalty. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. - ITA No. 789/CHD/2016 - - - Dated:- 18-11-2016 - SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal For The Respondent : Sh. S.K. Mittal ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, JM This appeal by the assessee has been directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 31.3.2016 for assessment year 2009-10 challenging the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idential premises of the assessee group amounting to ₹ 11 lakhs. (ii) Pages 54-59 of Annexure A-10 of delta 1 (iii) Capital introduced in firms and purchase of shares of companies amounting to ₹ 69,77,500/- (iv) Jewellery amounting to ₹ 2,50,000/- As the assessee failed to specify and substantiate the manner in which undisclosed income was earned, the Assessing officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA of the I.T. Act. The assessee submitted before Assessing officer at the penalty proceedings that surrender was made at search and different sums were offered on different issues. The source of income and the nature of earning were also explained and also sources of income were explained while making the of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounting to ₹ 2,500,000/-, Ld. CIT(A) noted that the assessee has not specified and substantiated the manner of earning of these undisclosed income and, therefore, to that extent penalty was confirmed and appeal of the assessee was partly allowed. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the issue is fully covered by the decision of the ITAT, Chandigarh in DCIT Vs. Sanjeev Goyal and other in ITA No. 109/Chd/2015 etc. dated 18.11.2015 in which the Tribunal dismissed the Departmental appeal on identical facts. The findings in para 8 to 13 of the order of the Tribunal are reproduced asunder:- 8. We have heard the rival submissions and the perused the orders of the authorities below. 9. The undisputed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anation-5 to section 271(1)(c), interpreting which the Allahabad High Court 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 rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ), for granting immunity from penalty. 12. 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. 13. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 5. The copy was supplied to the Ld. DR and Ld. DR did not dispute that issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the aforesaid order. 6. Considering the facts of the case and in the light of the order of the ITAT Chandigarh in the case of DCIT Vs. Sh. Sanjeev Goyal (supra), it is clear that assessee has made surrender of income at the time of search and in the joint surrender of four persons it was explained the amount of the undisclosed income earned was from thes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
