TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 1019X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Under identical facts and circumstances we have taken similar view in many cases including the recent case of DCIT Vs. Shri Babulal Motavat [2014 (5) TMI 1179 - ITAT JODHPUR] there is no prescribed method to indicate the manner in which income was generated when the definition of ‘undisclosed income’ has been defined in the Act itself when no income of the specified previous year represented “either wholly or partly’ which onus lay upon the assessee stood discharged. Therefore, levy of penalty u/s 271AAA could not be imposed - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA NO. 21/Jodh/2014 (A.Y. 2010-11) - - - Dated:- 9-6-2014 - Shri Hari Om Maratha And Shri N.K.Saini, JJ. Assessee by: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta Department by: Shri N.A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) was imposed. On identical facts, the Cuttack Bench of the ITAT in the case of Pramod Kumar Jain Vs. JCIT reported in [2012] 77 DTR 244 for A.Y. 2008-09 has deleted similar penalty. By following the Tribunal order of the Cuttack Bench, the ld. CIT(A) has deleted this penalty. 5. Before us, both the parties have reiterated their earlier stand. We have found that this penalty is in respect of surrendered amount which was made during the search when the statement of the father of the assessee was recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act which was later on rectified by the assessee in his statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act, subsequently, in post search investigations. On identical facts and circumstances of the case this Bench has also rendered si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the definition of undisclosed income has been defined in the Act itself when no income of the specified previous year represented either wholly or partly which onus lay upon the assessee stood discharged. Therefore, levy of penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act has been correctly deleted by the ld. CIT(A). 6. We have further found that this issue stands covered against the revenue by the ITAT Jodhpur Bench in the case of The Dy. CIT Vs. Shri Mansoor Ali Hitawala ITA No. 530/JU/2013 decided on 05.03.014 for A.Y. 2010-11 wherein at para 8 the Tribunal has held as under: 8. After considering the rival submissions, we are inclined to go alongwith the ld. CIT(A). It is true that initiation and imposition of penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act aris ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel [2006] 152 Taxman 290 [All] and the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mahendra C. Shah [2008] 172 Taxman 58 [Guj] are relevant. Moreover, from the statements, we have observed that the authorized officer has not specifically asked to the assessee during such proceedings about the manner in which the assessee has earned undisclosed income. Regarding observation of the A.O. that the assessee should have appealed against the initiation of penalty proceedings, there is no such provision u/s 246 (1) to file appeal against such initiation of penalty proceedings. Also the A.O. without making further addition assessed the in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
