TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 456X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der is for the whole group and the taxes shall be paid in respective hands/ persons after going through the seized material. It is clear that when this letter was filed the seized material was not with the assessee. The subsequent letters modifying the surrendered amount are based on the income belonging to the assessee on seized material. DR has pointed out that the manner of earning of the surrendered income has not been disclosed by the assessee whereas the assessee by letter dated 21.01.2010 has disclosed the manner of earning the said income by way of trading in commodities and real estate and also stated this fact is substantiated from the seized material. Moreover this factual position is not denied by the AO and this is not the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it into the scope of Sec 271 AAA . 4. That the CIT(A) has, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, grossly erred on facts and in law in observing that the surrender made by the assessee is not in course of the statement recorded u/s 132(4) and hence Sec 271 AAA benefit cannot be granted to the appellant . 5. That the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal of the assessee and the CIT(A) has failed to adjudicate the matter in a judicious manner . 6. That the evidence and submissions filed and materials available on record have not been properly construed and judiciously interpreted, hence the penalty levied is uncalled for. 7. That the various observations made by the CIT(A) in the impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade on 17.03.2009 by declaring additional income of ₹ 1,17,72,500/- for the relevant AY 2009-10 in addition to additional income of ₹ 47,79,685/- which was already offered to tax in return dated 08.12.2009. Thereby the additional income offered by the assessee was ₹ 1,65,52,185/- in addition to its regular income. According to the assessee the total declared income including the additional income was ₹ 2,06,18,880/-. The assessment order was passed at ₹ 2,06,18,880/- on 31.12.2010 and penalty proceedings under section 271AAA. 4. The case of the assessee before the AO in penalty proceedings was that the assessee has surrendered the additional income during the course of search and as such the penalty under se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roup were operated. It was the search on the whole group and not on the assessee only and as such it cannot be said that the letter dated 17.03.2009 was not filed during the search. The search had taken place on various premises including the residences and lockers of the family members and the search continued till the last panchnama was drawn in respect of lockers. 7. The ld counsel further submitted that the letters dated 21.01.2010 and 28.02.2010 were filed in modification of earlier letter dated 17.03.2009 and as such this is not a case of retraction. The surrender was made with reference to the seized documents and the same is accepted by the AO while completing the assessment as the income assessed and the income returned/surrende ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty under section 271 AAA of the Act is rightly imposed. 9. In the rejoinder, the ld counsel for the assessee submitted on instructions that the tax has also been paid on ₹ 1,17,72,500/-. He also submitted that it is not the case of AO or ld. CIT(A) that the manner in which the surrendered income is earned is not shown. He stated that in any case, the assessee vide letter dated 21.01.2010 clearly stated that additional income has been earned by him along with his three brothers in their individual capacity by way of trading in various commodities and real estate and this fact is substantiated in the seized material. 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. The search was initiated on 10.02.2009 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch it cannot be that it is a case of retraction because the income declared by the assessee which is assessed by the AO. The letter dated 17.03.2009 was filed before the Director of Income Tax (Investigations) I New Delhi who was the in charge of the search and it is also stated in the said letter this surrender is for the whole group and the taxes shall be paid in respective hands/ persons after going through the seized material. It is clear that when this letter was filed the seized material was not with the assessee. The subsequent letters modifying the surrendered amount are based on the income belonging to the assessee on seized material. 13. The ld DR has pointed out that the manner of earning of the surrendered income has not bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
