TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was earned as a result of various business transactions, which were not accounted for in the books of account. This reply was filed before the DIT [INV], Panipat and submissions were reiterated before the ACIT, Central Circle, Karnal on 13.02.2013. Considering these facts on record, we are of the considered view that the assessee has fulfilled all the conditions laid down in section 271AAA of the Act. Therefore, no interference is called for. - Decided against revenue - ITA No. 2572/DEL/2015 - - - Dated:- 8-1-2020 - Shri Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member, And Shri N.K. Billaiya, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA, Shri Rohit Jain, Adv, Shri Deepesh Jain, CA, Ms. Meenal Goyal, CA For the Revenue : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d all the mandatory conditions given in section 271AAA of the Act and, therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in levying the penalty. 7. After considering the facts and submissions, the ld. CIT(A) was convinced that the assessee has fulfilled all the mandatory conditions laid down in section 271AAA of the Act and, accordingly, deleted the penalty of ₹ 75 lakhs. The relevant findings of the ld. CIT(A) read as under: 6. I have considered the assessee's submissions as well as the impugned order. It is the case of the AO that the manner in which the income was derived was not substantiated with supporting evidence. This persuaded the AO hold that the assessee did not fulfill all the conditions as laid down in sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered amount was disclosed in the revised return filed with taxes paid thereon. Thus without much elaboration, respectfully following the cited orders of the higher judicial forum, the penalty levied of ₹ 75,00,000/- is directed to be deleted. 8. Before us, the ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the Assessing Officer. 9. Per contra, the ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated what has been stated before the lower authorities. 10. We have given thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. It is not in dispute that income of ₹ 15 crores was offered as additional income in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. The relevant question and answers read as under: Q, Do you wish to say ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
