9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 513X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d without jurisdiction. 2. That the CIT(A) has, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty of Rs. 1,83,357/- levied by the AO u/s 271AAA . 3. That the CIT(A) has , in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, erred on facts and in law in observing that the case of the appellant does not fit 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the parties with whom such business was conducted. 4. A search u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out in Dawat Group of cases including the assessee on 10/02/2009. During the course of assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessee offered additional income of Rs. 13,02,500/-. The assessment u/s 143(3) was completed vide order dated 31/12/2010 by making addition of Rs. 34,59,250/- as regards additional income offered by the assessee during assessment proceedings. At the time of assessment order the Assessing Officer held that as regards immunity from imposition of penalty u/s 271 AAA is concerned that cannot be granted to the assessee for the reason that the assessee has not fulfilled the conditions laid in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e us is identical in nature to that of brother of the assessee's case wherein the ITAT has allowed the appeal of the assessee therein. The ITAT, New Delhi in ITA No. 6615/Del/2013 Assessment Year 2009-10 dated 16th August, 2017 held as under:- "10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. The search was initiated on 10.02.2009 on the Dawat group of cases. The search was conducted at various places including the factory premises, registered offices, residences, lockers etc. Different panachnamas were made at different premises on different dates. Admittedly the last panchnamas of the group were made on 23.03.2009, 25.03.2009 and 27.03.2009. The letter dated 17.03.2009 surrendering the amount of Rs. 17 crores w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er 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 been disclosed by the assessee 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 basis for imposing the penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
