2013 (9) TMI 1221

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ORDER PER : D.K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This is the revenue's appeal against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-II Ahmedabad dated 22-03-2012. 2. Revenue has taken following effect ground:- "1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in directing the AO to delete the penalty of ₹ 5,20,000/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271AAA of the Act." 3. Brief facts of the case are that a se .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s the assessee had not filed any specific details of the amount received. 4. In appeal, this penalty was deleted by Ld. CIT(A) by observing as under:- "5. I have considered the facts of the case, the order of the Assessing Officer levying penalty, the submissions of the appellant and the case laws relied upon. It is seen that there is no search u/s.132 in the case of the firm and accordingly, s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the appellant as no search action has been initiated u/s. 132 of the I.T. Act in the case of the appellant. As per alternative arguments of the appellant and the case laws relied upon also, the penalty u/s. 271AAA is not leviable as all the three conditions provided in exception in subsection (2) of Section 271AAA, are fulfilled. Hence, the penalty of ₹ 5, 20,500/- as levied u/s.271AAA of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X