TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 410X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 42,611/- levied u/s 271AAA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'The Act']. 3. The roots for levy of penalty lie in the assessment order dated 31.03.2014 framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that search operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 29.03.2012. The return of income originally filed declared an income of Rs. 58,38,490/-. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, revised return of income was filed declaring income of Rs. 3.71 crores. 5. While framing the assessment order, the Assessing Officer formed a belief that the assessee was involved in providing accommodation entries, and accordingly, returned incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee by holding as under: In the present case, the assessee has failed all the three conditions as mentioned above. The assessee has not specify the manner in income has been derived and has not paid taxes an interest thereon in respect of undisclosed income. Further, the case laws as relied upon by the assessee are also not a help as the facts and circumstances of those cases are entirely different that of assessee's case. Therefore, I held the assessee as liable to penalize u/s 271AAA of the Act and a penalty of Rs. 76,42,611 /- as computed below is imposed upon the assessee. Amount of penalty is computed as under: Undisclosed income Rs. 7,64,26,117/- Penalty computed @10% Rs. 76,42,611/- Penalty imposed Rs. 76,42,6117- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore us. 13. The ld. DR, through his written submissions, once again reiterated the findings of the Assessing Officer and strongly contended that the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in deleting the penalty. Strong reliance was placed on the decision in the case of PCIT Vs. Ritu Singal 92 Taxmann.com 224 and Anand Sancheti ITA No. 305/NAG/2015. 14. Per contra, the ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated what has been stated before the lower authorities. 15. We have given thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below and have also considered the judicial decisions relied upon by the ld. representatives. A bare perusal of the penalty order shows that the Assessing Officer has levied the penalty mechanically by taking differen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1). 4. The provisions of section 274and 275shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation - for the purposes of this section, - (i) "undisclosed income" means- (i) any income of the specified previous year represented, either wholly or partly, by any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or any entry in the books of account or other documents or transactions found in the course of a search under section 132,which has- (A) not been recorded on or before the date of search in the books of account or other documents maintained in the normal course relating to such previous year; or (B) otherwise not been disclosed to the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se no expense was found recorded in the books of account which represents any income of the specified previous year. 19. As mentioned elsewhere, while levying the penalty, the Assessing Officer has nowhere mentioned specifically any undisclosed income within the meaning of undisclosed income given u/s 271AAA of the Act. On the contrary, the facts available on record indisputably establish that the quantum of income confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) was purely on estimate basis and in our humble opinion, estimated income cannot be said to be undisclosed income within the meaning of section 271AAA of the Act. 20. In the case of Durga Kamal Rice Mills 265 ITR 25, the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta has held as under: "When two views are poss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|