TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsidering all the impugned penalty levied by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and sustained by the CIT(A) was not justified. Accordingly, the same is deleted. This finding has been given by considering the peculiar facts of the present case, therefore, it is made clear that it may not be considered as a precedent in the other cases. - Appeal of the assessee is allowed. - ITA NO. 1278/Chd/2018 - - - Dated:- 29-10-2020 - SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP And SHRI , SANJAY GARG, JM Assessee by : Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A Revenue by : Sh. Daya Inder Singh Sidhu, Addl. CIT ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dt. 28/08/2018 of Ld. CIT(A)-3 Ludhiana. 2. Following ground has been r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce made by filing POA. No information was called for and as such no information was filed 05.10.2015 05.10.2015 Summons issued by ADIT(Inv)-II, Ludhiana on 29.09.2015 29.09.2015 Letter submitted before DDIT, Ludhiana on 12.10.2015 12.10.2015 Notice u/s 142(1) issued on 08.04.2016 08.04.2016 Reply to notice u/s 142(1) dt. 08.04.2016 filed on 27.04.2016 24.06.2016 Order u/s 143(3) passed on 04.08.2016 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee's Paper Book and informed that an amount of ₹ 37 lacs was surrendered (equivalent to Long Term Capital Gain of ₹ 36,23,134/- ) and an amount of ₹ 12,55,871/- as income tax interest thereon was deposited on 12.10.2015. Therefore, from the facts of the present case, it is clear that the assessee suomoto surrendered an amount of ₹ 37 lacs before any of the authorities of the Income Tax pointed out any undisclosed income of the assessee. I t is not iced that the assessee informed the D.D. I . ( Investigation- II ) , Ludhiana vide letter dated 12.10.2015 ( in response to the summon u/s 131(1A) of the Act dated 29.9.2015) that a recomputation of taxable income was filed, wherein an amount of ₹ 37 la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der . The Tribunal further held that the additional income so offered by the assessee was done in good faith and to buy peace. The burden shifts to the assessee only if he fails to offer any explanation for the undisclosed income or offers an explanation which is found to be false by assessing authority. The revised return of income was filed in which the entire income was surrendered with an explanation. The revised return was regularized by the Revenue. The assessing authority had failed to take any object ion that the declaration of income made by the assessee in his revised return and his explanation were not bonafide. The Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) deleting the penalty imposed under sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vied by the A.O. u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act and sustained by the Ld.CIT(A) was not justified. Accordingly, the same is deleted. This finding has been given by considering the peculiar facts of the present case, therefore, i t is made clear that it may not be considered as a precedent in the other cases. Since the facts involved in the case of the Assessee and Smt. Neelu Garg(supra) are similar which is also evident from the Chart reproduced in para 4 of this order, so respectfully following the aforesaid referred to order dt. 26/04/2019 in ITA No. 1472/Chd/2018 in the case of Smt. Neelu Garg Vs. ITO, the penalty under section 271(1)(c)of the Act levied by the A.O. and sustained by the Ld.CIT(A) is hereby deleted. 7. In the result, ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
