TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the case of Neeraj Singhal [ 2015 (3) TMI 680 - ITAT DELHI] has taken a view that in such scenario, penalty u/s.271AAA cannot be levied and the same is being upheld in SHRI BANARASIDAS R. JINDAL AND OTHERS [ 2015 (7) TMI 159 - ITAT PUNE] we are of considered view therefore that the findings arrived at by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) is not correct in law as well as in facts. We set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty u/s.271AAA of the Act from the hands of the assessee.- Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 116/PUN/2017 - - - Dated:- 10-1-2020 - Shri Anil Chaturvedi, AM And Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, JM For the Assessee : Shri Hari Krishan For the Revenue : Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e office notice issued u/s.153A of the Act, the assessee filed return of income on 18.09.2012 offering for tax income to the tune of ₹ 299,65,546/-. The order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.153A of the Act was passed on 27.03.2014 assessing the income of the assessee of ₹ 2,99,65,546/-. On perusal of the details filed during the post search assessment proceedings, it was noticed that: (i) The return filed on 18.09.2012 was the first return filed by the assessee for the year under consideration. (ii) Out of the total income of ₹ 2,99,65,546/- offered for tax, sum of ₹ 50,00,000/- was offered as the additional undisclosed income. Notice u/s.271AAA r.w.s. 274 of the Act was issued on 27.03.2013 and the same was duly served o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in respect of the assessee for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y.2011-12, ₹ 50,00,000/- was disclosed as additional income to cover up the discrepancies. It was also observed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) that the same was not linked to any specific loose paper or investment made by the assessee. The issue that undisclosed income of ₹ 50,00,000/- pertained to the year under consideration reached finality as the Assessing Officer accepted the return income u/s.153A of the Act. In the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals), he has referred to subsequent assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2012-13 wherein on the basis of loose papers No.7 seized vide Bundle No. B-1 from the residence of the Director, Shri Sunil Kotecha, the Assessing Officer made sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of business concern, family members and out of which, as evident from Para 3.2 of the CIT(Appeals) s order, facts recorded that ₹ 50,00,000/- was disclosed for assessment year 2011-12 in the case of the assessee company. The Ld. AR of the assessee invited our attention to Page 51 of the paper book wherein computation of income has been placed for the assessment year 2011-12 therein, ₹ 50,00,000/- has been disclosed in the return of income and the same was accepted by the Department since the demand notice issued u/s.156 of the Act as placed at Page 56 of the paper book which shows Nil demand. The Ld. AR stated that during the course of proceedings u/s. 132(4) of the Act, no question was put forth regarding seized Loose Paper N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hereas already for assessment year 2012-13 substantive additions have been made on the basis of that Loose Paper which is an undisputed fact. 7. Per contra, the Ld. DR placed strong reliance on the findings of the Sub-ordinate Authorities. 8. We have perused the case records and heard the rival contentions. We find that during the course of search, Mr. Sunil Kotecha, Director of the assessee company had disclosed ₹ 6 crores in order to cover up various discrepancies found during the course of search and out of that, ₹ 50,00,000/- has been additionally disclosed in respect of the relevant assessment year 2011-12 in respect of the assessee company. The said income has been taken into account in the return of income filed and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
