9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1654X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubstantiate the manner of earning undisclosed income and unless asked assessee did not have any opportunity to explain it. Revenue also could not explain that specific question was asked and assessee did not furnish the answer. The condition regarding specifying and substantiating the manner in which undisclosed income has been earned is always difficult for the assessee for obvious reason that no records of such income are kept in a meticulous manner. Generally, no person usually keeps the evidences of undisclosed income which has not been recorded in the regular books of account. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. Mahendra C. Shah [2008 (2) TMI 32 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] has held that assessee having declared the value of diamond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee included a sum of ₹ 9 crores as construction of the hotel project and ₹ 1145950/- . For the year, the return of income filed by the assessee on 03.09.2010 wherein, assessee has declared income of ₹ 93900720/- comprising of salary income, income from house property, capital gain and income from other sources. It also included the disclosure of ₹ 91145950/-. The total income of the assessee was assessed at ₹ 208899730/- vide order dated 29.12.2010 u/s 143(3) of the Act. The issue involved is the penalty u/s 271AAA of ₹ 9114595/- on undisclosed income of ₹ 91145950/- included in the return of income. According to the ld Assessing Officer the assessee has surrendered above sum in his statement u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew of the above facts it was submitted that the levy of penalty u/s 271AAA is unjustified. In the end it was also stated that it is just technical or venial breach of law and therefore, penalty should not be levied. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Hindustan Steel Ltd Vs. State of Orissa 83 ITR 26. 6. The ld DR vehemently submitted that ld Assessing Officer and ld CIT(A) has given the valid reason for upholding the penalty. He further submitted that coordinate bench in Anand Sanchati Vs. DCIT ITA 305/Nagpur/2015, the penalty has been confirmed. 7. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. According to the provisions of section 271AAA immunity from penalty is available with respect to un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15 CTR 493 has held that assessee having declared the value of diamonds in his statement u/s 132(4) and paid due tax thereon, he was entitled to immunity from penalty according to explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is important to note that in that particular section has the requirement of specifying the manner of earning undisclosed income. Such view is also taken by coordinate benches in following cases: a. Pramod Kumar Jain Vs. DCIT 33 Taxmann.com 651 b. Ashok Kr. Sharma Vs. DCIT 33 TAxmann.com 652 c. Rajrani Gupta Vs. DCIT ITA No. 3371/Del/2011 d. Sunil Kr. Bansal Vs. DCIT 37 ITR (Trib) 576 e. CIT Vs. Radha Kishan Goel 278 ITR 454 f. Concrete Developers Vs. ACIt 34 Taxmann.com 62 g. ACIT Vs. Nandini R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
