TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1029X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 31st January, 2011 which falls within the period in which Section 271AAA was applicable i.e., after the 1st day of June, 2007 but the 1st day of July, 2012. In the above circumstances, in our opinion, learned CIT(A) rightly held that in this case, penalty was leviable under Section 271AAA and not under Section 271(1)(c). - Decided against revenue. - ITA No.4818/Del/2014 - - - Dated:- 16-4-2019 - Shri G.D. Agrawal, Vice President And Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-DR. For the Respondent : Shri Shashwat Bajpai And Shri Sharad Agarwal, Advocates. ORDER PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT :- This appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2010-11 is directed against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... search has taken place at the assessee s premises on 31st January, 2011. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment at ₹ 8,41,36,820/- which was the income declared by the assessee in the revised return. The Assessing Officer levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) at ₹ 2,44,72,800/-. On appeal, learned CIT(A) held that at the relevant time, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could have been levied where Section 271AAA was applicable. He, therefore, modified the penalty order and, instead of penalty under Section 271(1)(c), he imposed penalty under Section 271AAA at ₹ 42,00,000/- and allowed the relief of ₹ 2,02,72,800 i.e., ₹ 2,44,72,800 - ₹ 42,00,000/-. 5. At the time of hearing before us, it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch for any undisclosed income, the penalty is leviable under this Section at the rate of 10% of the undisclosed income. Sub-section (3) has clearly provided that no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) shall be imposed upon the assessee whose case is covered by Section 271AAA. Admittedly, in this case, the search has taken place on 31st January, 2011 which falls within the period in which Section 271AAA was applicable i.e., after the 1st day of June, 2007 but the 1st day of July, 2012. In the above circumstances, in our opinion, learned CIT(A) rightly held that in this case, penalty was leviable under Section 271AAA and not under Section 271(1)(c). Similar view has been expressed by the ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Ashwani Kumar Arora (supra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
