TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 334X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccordingly, restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. AO is directed to consider the levy of penalty u/s 271AAA on the sum of ₹ 4 crores as per the provisions of law keeping in mind that the said sum was offered for taxation in the statement made u/s 132(4) of the Act and honoured in the return of income. Needless to mention, the Assessing Officer shall give reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No. 2/DEL/2018 - - - Dated:- 4-3-2020 - Shri H.S. Sidhu, Judicial Member, And Shri N.K. Billaiya Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Rakesh Gupta, Adv, Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv For the Revenue : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t by him to the Director of Income tax [Inv] as the said statement was made by him under a mistaken belief of fact/law. The relevant portion of the assessee s statement read as under: As regards the amount of ₹ 2.44 crores which are the outstanding balances as on 1.1.1998 noted in the seized 1998 diary in Annexure A- 3 found during the course of search, the assessee has explained in its letter dated 4th Matrch,2013 as well as in its letter dated 31.12.2010 that such iottinss pertain to 1998 and as per law cannot be taxed in assessment year 2011- 12. It has further been explained in the surrender of ₹ 4.00 crores made by the assessee which includes both the cash seized from the assessee on the date of search as also the un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee in respect of excess amount so offered for taxation. In the instant case even if the amount of₹ 2.44 crores which is the outstanding balance as on 1.1.1998 is c onsidg edfnass ess ment year 2011-12 then also the excess amount of in cq/fielqfffi^^fiy the assessee for taxation out of ₹ 2.60 crores duly covers the amount of ₹ 2.44 crores outstanding as on 1.1.1998 and therefore, also there is no justification in making further addition of ₹ 2.44 crores over and above the amount of ₹ 2.60 crores. 6. This statement of the assessee did not find any favour with the Assessing Officer who was of the firm belief that the entries found in the diary amounting to ₹ 2.44 crores are independent entries an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty of ₹ 64.40 lakhs, which was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 8. Having heard the rival submissions, we have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. In so far as the addition of ₹ 2.44 crores is concerned, which was over and above the declared sum of ₹ 4 crores, the Tribunal in ITA No. 4392/DEL/2014, vide order dated 28.06.2018, has held that the sum of ₹ 2.44 crores is part of the sum of ₹ 4 crores and, therefore, no separate addition should be made in respect of this amount. The relevant findings of the Tribunal read as under: 18. Now coming to Ground No.4, it is not in dispute that the declaration of ₹ 2.6 crore by the assessee u/s 132(4) of the Act was on account of sales ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ept the same and direct the authorities to telescope ₹ 2.44 crores into ₹ 2.60 crores in which event nothing over and above the declaration of ₹ 4 crore is taxable. We accordingly answer Ground No.4 in favour of the assessee. 9. In light of the afore stated findings of the Tribunal, the entire quarrel boils down to the declared sum of ₹ 4 crores which was offered by the assessee in his return of income. A careful perusal of the order u/s 271AAA of the Act would show that the Assessing Officer has considered the amount of ₹ 2.44 crores, over and above the surrendered amount, and has computed the penalty accordingly. Since the issue relating to the sum of ₹ 2.44 crores is now well settled in favour of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
