9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 1071X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sclosed income was accepted by the AO and the tax due thereon had been paid by the assessee. We draw our strength from the decision in the case of Neeraj Singal vs. ACIT [2013 (6) TMI 762 - ITAT DELHI] which is identical to the present case. - Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 271AAA amounting to ₹ 64,50, 000/- imposed by on account of undisclosed income of ₹ 6,45,00,000/- 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, any/all the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal. " 3. The Ld. DR relied on the order of the AO and vehemently argued that the imposition of penalty was patently legal and appropriate on the facts and circumstances of the case and submitted that the penalty deleted by the Ld. CIT (A) ought to be restored. 4. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had offered additional income during the course of search and this income was accepted by the AO in the assessment order. It was further submitted that the AO had not disputed the quantum nor the manner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he immunity under Explanation 5 to Section 271(l)(c) inapplicable and that in absence of specific query/question penalty could not be imposed. He also relied on the decision of ITAT Delhi in ACIT vs. Sushil Kumar Gupta and Anil Kumar Gupta in ITA Nos. 3856, 3857/De1/2013 for the same proposition. The Ld. AR pleaded that the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) be upheld. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and hav perused the material on record. it is seen that the Ld. C!' (A) has discussed the entire issue and recorded a finding i Paras 4.6, 4.7 and 4.8 of the impugned order. Thes paragraphs are being reproduced for a ready reference a under: "4.6 In the present case, the director of the appellant company, Sh. Sameer Gupta, was confr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 271AAA he could have perhaps tried to furnish some more evidence or proper explanation. However, no such attempt seems to have been made during the search or even during assessment proceedings. That being the case, and in view of admission of the undisclosed income in the returns filed and payment of full tax with penal interest thereon, the ratio of judgments in CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goyal (supra), Hon 'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Mahendra C Shah (supra) and Mothers Pride Education Personna Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (supra) will come into play. 4.8 In the above facts and circumstances, and legal position of the matter, the penalty imposed cannot be legally sustained and is cancelled. " 5.1 In view of the facts of the present cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
