TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnot be blamed for non-furnishing of manner of earning undisclosed income and substantiation thereof sue motu. It was not shown to us as to whether such query was put even in the course of assessment proceedings. In the absence of any inquiry, the assessee cannot be blamed for non-satisfaction of the exit clause provided under s.271AAA(2) of the Act. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the immunity provided under erstwhile provisions of Section 271AAA(1) of the Act cannot be denied. - Decided against revenue - I.T.A. No. 1097/Ahd/2016, I.T.A. No. 1101/Ahd/2016 - - - Dated:- 4-10-2018 - Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia, Accountant Member And Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr For the Appellant : Shri Albinus Ti rkey, Sr . ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time of search and paid taxes thereon. Consequent upon the return filed by including the additional income aforestated, the return of income was subjected to scrutiny assessment. The disclosure so made was accepted by AO as such. While passing the assessment order, the AO invoked the provisions of Section 271AAA of the Act and imposed penalty @10% on the undisclosed income of the specified previous year at ₹ 28 Lakhs. Consequently, the penalty of ₹ 28 Lakhs was imposed under s. 271AAA of the Act vide penalty order dated 21.08.2014 concerning AY 2012-13 in question. 4. Aggrieved by the imposition of penalty, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). 5. In the first appeal, the CIT(A) found merit for non-imposition of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the exit clause, the assessee cannot be exonerated from the liability of penalty under s. 271AAA of the Act. The learned DR accordingly submitted that the penalty order of the CIT(A) cancelling penalty wrongly requires to be set aside and the penalty order passed by the AO requires to be restored. 8. Learned AR, on the other hand, referred to the relevant extract of the statement recorded under s.132(4) of the Act as reproduced in the order of the CIT(A) at para no.3 of its order and submitted that the manner of deriving undisclosed income was answered in a plausible manner. No specific questions were asked to the assessee regarding the substantiation of the manner while recording the statement under s.132(4) of the Act or at any later ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s for determination in the present case is whether the assessee, in the facts of the case, has fulfilled the conditions for exclusion from clutches of penalty under s.271AAA of the Act or not. The thrust of the case of the AO is that the assessee has failed to specify the manner in which the undisclosed income has been derived as well as failed to substantiate the manner as contemplated under s.271AAA(2) of the Act. It is the case of the assessee on the other hand that the order of the AO imposing penalty was not sustainable as rightly held by the CIT(A) since the prerequisites specified under s.271AAA(2) of the Act are broadly complied to claim immunity from the imposition of penalty. In this regard, we straightway find that the issue is s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thus, we decline to interfere. 10. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. ITA No. 1101/Ahd/2016 (Shri Mahendrabhai J. Shah) 11. The impugned appeal also arises from same search proceedings on Anilbholabhai Group under s.132 of the Act where the impugned assessee was also covered. The Revenue in the captioned appeal has challenged the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the penalty of ₹ 22,50,000/- imposed by the AO under s.271AAA of the Act. The facts and circumstances of the case are strikingly similar to the facts involved in the case of Shree Krishna Developers ITA No.1097/Ahd/2016 (supra). Therefore, our observations and conclusion thereon shall apply mutatis mutandis to the facts of the present case. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
