TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mposed u/s 271AAA of the Act is deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.267/DEL/2014 - - - Dated:- 13-4-2018 - MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv Respondent by Sh. Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 21/10/2013 passed by CIT(A)-XXXI, New Delhi. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271AAA to the tune of ₹ 25,00,000/-. 3. A search and seizure operation was conducted on 31/7/2008 on the assessee company. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e course of assessment proceedings complete details regarding source of the construction expenses, stock and surrendered amount were explained and submitted by the assessee. The Ld. AR further submitted that to avoid litigation with the Department, the assessee voluntarily declared and surrendered amount as his income for the Assessment Year 2009-10 on the pre-condition that no penalty proceedings may be initiated either in his case or in the case of the other family members. The Ld. AR further submitted that the provisions of Section 271AAA are attracted only when any undisclosed income is found during the course of search action and no explanation is offered regarding source of such undisclosed income by the assessee. The Ld. AR submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtinent to note that the Ld. AR during the course of hearing pointed out that in case of brother of the assessee i.e. Rajesh Kumar Garg, the Tribunal deleted the penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act for Assessment Year 2009- 10 itself. The Tribunal held as under:- 7. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. According to the provisions of section 271AAA immunity from penalty is available with respect to undisclosed income of previous year if the assessee makes declaration of the undisclosed income in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act admitting the undisclosed income and specifies the manner in which such income has been derived and further substantiate the manner in which it was derived. Of course, the taxes have been paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ning undisclosed income. Such view is also taken by coordinate benches in following cases: a. Pramod Kumar Jain Vs. DCIT 33 Taxmann.com 651 b. Ashok Kr. Sharma Vs. DCIT 33 TAxmann.com 652 c. Rajrani Gupta Vs. DCIT ITA No. 3371/Del/2011 d. Sunil Kr. Bansal Vs. DCIT 37 ITR (Trib) 576 e. CIT Vs. Radha Kishan Goel 278 ITR 454 f. Concrete Developers Vs. ACIt 34 Taxmann.com 62 g. ACIT Vs. Nandini Realtors ITA No. 415/Nagpur/2015 h. Brij Bhusan Singhal Vs. ITO 5261/Del/2013 i. DCIT Vs. Sulachana Devi Agarwal 1052/Ahd/2012 j. ACIT Vs. Kanakiya Spaces Pvt. Ltd. 6763/Mum/2011 k. Neeraj Singhal Vs. ACIT 146 ITD 152. l. ACIT V Ajit singh 76 Taxmmann.com 212 (jp) 8. Coming to the decision cited by the ld Departmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manner in which the undisclosed income was derived and about its substantiation, it is our considered view that the AO was not justified in imposing penalty u/s 271AAA specially, when the offered undisclosed income was accepted by the AO and the tax due thereon had been paid by the assessee. We draw our strength from the decision of the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Neeraj Singal vs. ACIT in ITA No. 337/Del/2013 reported in 2015(3) TMI-680-ITAT Delhi, which is identical to the present case. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 6. In the final result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed. The Hon ble Delhi High Court while confirming the Tribunal s view held as under: 3. The CIT(A) in para 4.7 of the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
