TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 1365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith the ld.counsel of the assessee that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was leviable, in as much as the case comes under the purview of section 271AAA of the Act. There is no ambiguity in this regard, and the view is also supported by the tribunal decision in the case of Cario International [ 2013 (10) TMI 1543 - ITAT DELHI ] - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.1519/Kol/2012 - - - Dated:- 16-12-2014 - Hon ble Sri Mahavir Singh, JM AND Hon ble Sri Shamim Yahya, AM For the Appellant : Shri D.Banerjee, JCIT For the Respondent : Sri Subash Agarwal, Advoctae ORDER Per Shri Shamim Yahya, AM This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of ld. C.I.T-(A)-Central-III, Kolkata dt. 19.07.2012 and p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 56,00,000/- was not made voluntarily by the assessee company and such income would not have been disclosed by the assessee in the absence of a search. 4. Before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee submitted that the assessee had of its own disclosed the income of ₹ 56,00,000/- in its return filed for the year under appeal. Therefore there was no concealment on the part of the assessee. It was further submitted that the case of the assessee does not fall within the purview of Explanation 5 or Explanation 5A of Section 271(1)(c), therefore, the penalty has been wrongly levied. Considering the above the ld. CIT(A) observed that record in this case does not suggest that amount of Rs,56,00,000/- which was found at the time of search in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed income was derived; and (iii) pays the tax, together with interest, if any, in respect of the undisclosed income. (3) No penalty under the provisions of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in subsection (1). (4) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. 5.1. Referring to the above the ld. Counsel of the assessee pointed out that search in this case was conducted on 05.8.2008. He submitted that as per the explanation to section 271AAA of the Act the case falls under 271AAA of the Act. Hence he submitted that the penalty, if any, was liable only u/s 27 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act can be imposed. In this view of the matter we agree with the ld.counsel of the assessee that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was leviable, in as much as the case comes under the purview of section 271AAA of the Act. There is no ambiguity in this regard, and the view is also supported by the tribunal decision in the case of Cario International (supra). Accordingly without adverting to the plank on which the ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty, we hold that the assessee in this case cannot be visited for the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in as much as the case falls under 271AAA of the Act. Accordingly we uphold the deletion of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. In the result the appeal fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
