9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b-section (2) of section 271AAA are satisfied. The levy of penalty u/s. 271AAA is not warranted. - Decided against revenue. - ITA No. 1436/PN/2013,ITA No. 1438/PN/2013,ITA No. 1440/PN/2013 - - - Dated:- 26-6-2015 - Shri R.K. Panda and Shri Vikas Awasthy, JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri Y.K. Bhaskar For the Respondent : Shri J.P. Bairagra ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:- These appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Aurangabad dated 01-04-2013 for assessment year 2010-11 cancelling penalty levied u/s. 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) in the case of all the three assessees. Since, the facts and issues involved in the appeals are identical the appeals are taken up together for adjudication. 2. The brief facts of the case as emanating from records are: The assessees belong to Kalika Group , Jalna. A search u/s. 132 was conducted on the group concerns on 16-06-2009. In response to notice u/s. 153A, the assessees filed return of income in their respective cases. On the basis of disclosure statement recorded u/s. 132(4), addition was made in the hands of the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount disclosed in the hands of various members of the group. During the course of recording statement u/s. 132(4), a specific question (Q. No. 50) was asked, whether for availing the benefit of section 271AAA the assessee (Shri Ghanshyam Chunnilal Goyal) wants to say anything? In reply to the question, it was admitted that income of ₹ 14 Crores was earned by the members of the group, by unaccounted transaction in their business like steel, cotton, trading in land and plots, cloth trading, scrap trading etc. The same is declared as additional income over and above the regular income. The statement recorded by Shri Ghanshyam Chunnilal Goyal was admitted and accepted by other members of the group. Accordingly, addition was made in the hands of the group members. The substantial part of additional income declared is with respect to amounts receivable on account of hundi/petty loans/unaccounted sales and unaccounted purchases total to the tune of ₹ 6,54,35,000/- and unaccounted income from badla transaction of land ₹ 85,10,000/-. The ld. AR also referred to Q. No. 10 and Q. No. 13 of the statement recorded u/s. 131 to show that the additional income offered was substan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome. 8. In the present case, the Revenue has accepted that the conditions no. (i) and (iii) have been satisfied. Thus, the only condition which has not been fulfilled according to the Revenue is that the assessee has not been able to substantiate the manner in which undisclosed income is derived. The ld. AR of the assessee has drawn our attention towards the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) on 08-07-2009 and u/s. 131 on 17-08- 2009. During the recording of statement u/s. 132(4), we find a specific question was put to the assessee with respect to availing of benefit u/s. 271AAA. The same reads as under: Q. 50. Do you want to say anything else for availing the benefit of section 271AAA? Ans. I want to state that I have answered the all questions to the best of my knowledge. For the explanation regarding the issue of the shares allotted on premium, I want to state that though I has (sic) a honest belief that the said transactions are genuine, but the possibility of some technical errors like confirmation of the investing companies, mode of allotment, rationale of allotment, identification of the consultant and details of the investing companies etc. may has some technical ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at this amount is not recorded in the regular books of A/c of the assessees, hence I am offering this amount as an additional income in the hands of the Myself, Shri Arun Agrawal, Anil Goyal and Naresh B Jindal for the AY 10-11 @ 21,27,500/- each. Q. No. 11. Xxxxxxxxxx. Q. No. 12. Xxxxxxxxxx. Q. No. 13. I am showing you the chit seized from your residential premises, during the course of search action and inventoried as Annexure A-3 page 11 (back page). Please go through the contents of this page and explain the entries there in. Ans. The said details are the details of the persons to whom the directors had given the hundi/petty loans/unaccounted sale and made unaccounted purchases. The amount of ₹ 6,54,35,000/- is amount is receivable by the members of the group on 10-05-2009. These amount belongs to Shri Anil N. Goyal, Shri Arun S. Agrawal, (mentioned as Arun Ag), Shri Naresh B. Jindal (mentioned Naresh Jin) and my self (mentioned as Ghanshyam). As per the said entries the peak amount is ₹ 6,54,35,000/-. I accept the fact that this amount is not recorded in the regular books of A/c of the assessees; hence I am offering this amount as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion no. 6] 10,00,000 4 Investment in construction [Question no. 5] 86,48,831 5 Investment in stock of Sagar Paridhan Pvt. Ltd. [Question no. 7] 24,35,417 6 Investment in furniture in Sagar Paridhan Pvt. Ltd. [Question no. 7] 5,00,000 7 Unaccounted income from badla transaction [Question no. 10] 85,10,000 8 Unaccounted transactions explained [Question no. 13] 6,54,35,000 TOTAL 14,01,61,595 It is evident that the total undisclosed income under badla transaction and unaccounted transactions have been offered to tax in the hands of group members. 11. Thus, in our considered view the assessees have been able to substantiate the manner in which undisclosed income has been derived. Since, all the three conditions as laid down in sub-section (2) of section 271AAA are satisfied. The levy of penalty u/s. 271AAA is not warranted. 12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to any material or decision which can controvert the findings of the CIT(A). In the following cases which have been relied on by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee which was clearly held that penalty is not leviable. 12. Further the assessee has relied on the following decisions: Kanakia Spaces (P.) Ltd. (supra) A.N. Annamalaisamy (HUF) (supra) Pramod Kumar Jain (supra) Smt. Raj Rani Gupta (supra) 13. The Ld. D.R. for the Revenue was not able to place before us any decision which supports his case, therefore we find nothing wrong with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and confirm the same. 14. In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 1003/Chd/2013 is dismissed. 13. The co-ordinate Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of The Income Tax Officer Vs. Shri Satishchandra G. Mittal in ITA No. 970/PN/2011 for the assessment year 2008-09 decided on 11-05-2015 by placing reliance of the decision of Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal deleted the levy of penalty u/s. 271AAA in respect of income offered to tax during such proceedings. 14. The Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Neerat Singhal (Supra) has held that levy of penalty u/s.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
