TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vour of the assessee by an order of the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Mahavir Prasad Jaipuria vs. ACIT [2017 (10) TMI 875 - ITAT DELHI) wherein held that where the AO had accepted the assessee’s surrender without any questions being asked, no penalty u/s 271AAA was leviable. Therefore, on the same analogy, we do not find this case a fit case for imposition of penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.-6104/Del/2014 - - - Dated:- 27-2-2019 - Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member And Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Sh. R.S.Singhvi, Adv. For the Revenue : Shri N.K.Bansal, Sr.DR ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M.: This appeal is preferred against the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s 271AAA of the Act being 10% of the undisclosed income of ₹ 17,50,000/-. The assessee s appeal against the imposition of penalty was dismissed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals) and now the assessee has approached the ITAT and has challenged the impugned order by raising the following grounds of appeal :- 1. The order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) is bad in law nature, hence it is liable to be quashed. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding the penalty under section 271AAA despite the fact the assessee fulfilled the condition under section 271AAA sub section (2). Therefore, the same is liable to be deleted. 3. The appellant craves leave for addition, modification, alteration, amen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that the sum surrendered during the search was undisclosed income but not disclosing the source of such income cannot be construed as satisfaction of condition u/s 271AAA. It was submitted and vehemently argued by the Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative that the penalty had been rightly imposed and upheld and further that the assessee s appeal deserved to be dismissed. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and have also perused the orders of the lower authorities. We have also perused the statement of the assessee which was recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act on the date of search i.e. 21/01/2011. A perusal of the said statement shows that no surrender of the amount of cash seized i.e. ₹ 17,50,000/- was made by the assessee during th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
