TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ling written submission and also referring relevant documents relating to undisclosed income, which were found and seized. CIT(A) has rightly held that assessee is not at fault for substantiating the manner for earning the undisclosed income, in the absence of any specific query raised by the Authorised Officer while recording statement u/s. 132(4). The assessee has substantiated the manner, during the assessment proceedings, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the penalty in dispute. - Decided in favour of assessee - I.T.A. No. 6810/Del/2015 - - - Dated:- 17-4-2018 - SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Department by : Sh. Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. DR Assessee by : S h. Rohit Jain, A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... loose papers were found and seized. The return of income was filed on 31.8.2012 by the assessee, declaring total income of ₹ 30,28,31,503/-, which includes disclosures of ₹ 30 crores also. The due taxes alongwith interest, were also paid while filing the return of income. The assessment was completed by the AO u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 31.3.2014, at returned income of ₹ 30,28,31,503/-. However, the AO initiated the penalty u/s. 271AAA of the Act r.w.s. 274 separately on 31.3.2014 on the ground that since the assessee has admitted the undisclosed income however he had not substantiated the manner in which the income had been derived. In response to this notice a reply dated 28.4.2014 was filed. AO observed that at the time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Ld. CIT(A). He further stated that the assessee, in the course of the search, in a statement under section (4) of section 132, never specified the manner in which such income had been derived and also failed to substantiate the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived during the course of assessment proceedings. To support his contention, he relied upon the following case laws:- - STC vs. Modi Sugar Mills Ltd. AIR 1961 SC 1047 Pg. 1051 - Anand Sancheti vs. DCIT (ITA no. 305/Nag./2015) - ACIT vs. Shailesh Gopal Mhaske (2017) 86 taxmann.com 263 (Pune- Trib.) 6. On the contrary, Ld. A.R. of the assessee relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that he has passed a well reasoned order which does not need any i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Gebilal Kanhaialal HUF : 348 ITR 561. - Decision of Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel : 278 ITR 454. - Decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mahendra C Shah : 299 ITR 305. - Decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT (Central-1) vs. M/s Emirates Technologies Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 400/2017. - Decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT, Central-I vs. Sandeep Gupta ITA No. 967/2017. - Decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Mukeshbhai Ramanlal Prajapati : ITA No. 434 of 2017. - Decision of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Neerat Singal vs. ACIT 146 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder dated 4.11.2013 noted that no specific query had been put to the Assessee by drawing his attention to Section 271AAA of the Act asking him to specify the manner in which the undisclosed income, surrendered during the course of search, had been derived. The CIT(A), therefore, relying on the decisions of this Court held that the jurisdictional requirement of Section 271AAA was not met. 4. The above view has been concurred with by the ITAT. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the view that the concurrent decision of the CIT(A) and the ITAT represent a plausible view which cannot be said to be perverse. 6. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. 7. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
