TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 684X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any objection. These facts clearly mentioned in the Assessment Order as well as in the order of the CIT(A) and are not disputed by the DR. After the surrender, the statement was closed without any further query. The CIT(A) has given a detailed findings in the order. As regards the SSA International Ltd. (2018 (6) TMI 65 - ITAT DELHI) during the search proceedings, assessee therein expressed his inability to explain the discrepancy in the stock whereas the assessee has explained the documents found during the search. As regards the other case laws referred by the Ld. DR , the facts are distinguishable as the conditions prescribed in Section 271 AAA was not fulfilled by the assessees’ therein whereas the assessee in the present case expla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,41,78,010/-, which included the surrender of ₹ 8,00,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer initiated and levied penalty u/s 271AAA. 4. Being aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. The Ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer has rightly levied penalty and relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer. The Ld. DR relied upon the following decisions:- i. Ritu Singal Vs. CIT (2018-TIOL-438-HC-DEL-IT) ii. ACIT Vs. SSA International Ltd. (ITA No. 5051/Del/2013) iii. ACIT Vs. SSA International Ltd. (ITA No. 5051/Del/2013) iv. Sandeep Chandak Vs. PCIT [2018] 93 Taxmann.com 406 (S.C)/[2018]255 Taxman 367 (SC) v. Anand Sancheti Vs. DCIT [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esent the stock statement for the same day. ₹ 8 crores were surrendered on account of valuation difference in stock u/s 132(4) read with section 271AAA and requested the authorized officer to make it part and parcel of overall disclosure of ₹ 11 crores made by him in his statement recorded on oath on 16/12/2010. In fact after the surrender, the statement was closed without any further query. Subsequently, bifurcation of ₹ 11 crore was also provided vide letter dated 22/12/2010, i.e. the day of conclusion of search in which Shri Rajiv Nath surrendered ₹ 8 crore on account of valuation of stock in the company. Post dated cheques were handed over in respect of the tax due on the surrendered amount at the time of conclus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that Income Tax Act does not provide any specific format for disclosing the manner of deriving the undisclosed income. The very fact that the manner of deriving the undisclosed income was explained during the course of statement u/s 132(4) with a specific reference to section 271AAA and the Authorized Officer having not raised any further question on the manner specific, clearly proves that the Authorized Officer was satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee. Similarly, the Assessing Officer also accepted the same without raising any objection. No further questions were asked by the Assessing Officer either regarding the manner or regarding substantiating the manner. Not only this, the Assessing Officer accepted the surrendered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d purchase. It is a case of under valuation of closing stock and not undisclosed stock. All the payments were made by a/c payee cheques as recorded in the books of accounts. Therefore, question of furnishing any further names of the suppliers does not arise. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is pertinent to note here that a search action was conducted on the assessee group on 15/12/2010 wherein Mr. Rajiv Nath, Joint MD of the Group, had voluntarily disclosed an additional business income of ₹ 11 crores for the whole group for F. Y. 2011-12 u/s 132 (4). Penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer at ₹ 80,00,000/- u/s 271AAA in the case of the assessee on account of surrender of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the search on 22/12/2010 as mentioned in the bifurcation letter of even date. The assessee surrendered ₹ 8 Cr as business income as is evident from the extract of statement dt. 22/12/2010. The surrendered amount was declared in the return of income u/s 153A as business income. The Assessing Officer accepted the surrendered amount as business income as declared by the assessee in the return of income and levied the income tax on it accordingly. He accepted the manner in which this additional income of ₹ 8 crore was derived as explained during the search and did not raise any objection. These facts clearly mentioned in the Assessment Order as well as in the order of the CIT(A) and are not disputed by the Ld. DR. After the surrend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
