9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 513X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iated from the seized material. Moreover this factual position is not denied by the AO and this is not the basis for imposing the penalty. In that view of the matter and in view of such facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the action of the AO and accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the penalty imposed under section 271AAA. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. - ITA No. 842/DEL/2014 - - - Dated:- 7-11-2017 - SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Mr. Ananya Kapoor Sh. Sumit Manchandani, Adv For The Respondent : Sh. R. C. Dandey, Sr.DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE This appeal is filed against the order dated 10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es and conjectures . 8. That in any case the penalty is highly excessive and should be reduced. 3. The assessee declared income of ₹ 21,56,750/- in the return of income which consisted of income from salary at ₹ 18,00,000/-, share from partnership firm M/s R.S.Rice Gen. Mills at ₹ 7,702/-, interest from bank/Dawat Foods and NSCs at ₹ 2,42,681/- and income from trading business under the head other income at ₹ 5,31,076/- and deductions to the extent of ₹ 4,24,709/- were claimed. Besides this, an amount of ₹ 13,02,500/- was added back as undisclosed income of the assessee which was offered by the assessee as additional income during assessment proceedings. During the assessment proceedi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that since the surrender was accepted by the Department then it s not a case for levy of any penalty. The Ld. AR further relied upon the order of the ITAT, New Delhi in case of the assessee s brother when in similar issue has been allowed in favour of the brother of the assessee relating to imposition of penalty u/s 271AAA. The Ld. AR further submitted that surrender was made with reference to the seized documents and the same was accepted by the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment as the income assessed and the income returned/surrendered was the same. The assessee has also paid the taxes on the said assessed income. In-fact manner of earning the surrendered income was also disclosed by the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 17.03.2009 declaring the exact income belonging to him based on the seized documents. According to the assessee he modified the surrender made in respect of income belonging to him based on the seized documents. There is no dispute about the fact that the AO assessed the same income as declared or surrendered by the assessee. The AO has not assessed the income of ₹ 17 crores but has assessed the income at the same amount declared or surrendered by the assessee on the basis of the seized documents. 12. It is not the case of the revenue that the income belonging to the assessee was more than what is surrendered by him. The assessee has modified the surrender made during the course of search on 17.03.2009 and as such it cann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
