9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y order U / s. 271AAA is liable to be quashed. 2. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was vehemently wrong and unjustified in not appreciating the facts explained by the appellant and was bad in law in confirming the penalty imposed U / s. 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 7,00,650/- (to be read as Rs. 4,15,050/- after the appeal effect of quantum appeal). The penalty amounting to Rs. 4,15,050/- is liable to be deleted. 3. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the penalty U / s. 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 although all the conditions precedent for availing the immunity U/s. 271AAA(2) was satisfied by the appellant. The penalty amounting to Rs.4,15,050/- is bad in law and is liable to be deleted. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add or alter, amend and modify substantiate , delete and / or revise all or any of the grounds of appeal and or before the final hearing." 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a citizen of United Kingdom and a non-resident for the purpose of the Act. A search and seizure operation was conducted under sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee has submitted that total sale proceeds of the property was Rs. 76.5 lakhs. Accordingly, ld. AO completed the assessment with assessed total income at Rs. 70,06,500by adopting the sale consideration of the property at Rs. 76.50 lakhs and not Rs. 19.80 lakhs shown in the registered sale deed. Ld. AO also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) after which the total income was computed at Rs. 41,50,500. 6. Penalty proceedings under section 271AAA of the Act were undertaken. A show cause notice was issued on the assessee against which assessee submitted that penalty is not impossible since all the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 271AAA of the Act were complied with. However, ld. AO concluded that all the three necessary conditions laid down u/s 271AAA(2) of the Act have not been complied with as no voluntary admission towards undisclosed income has been made by the assessee and imposed a penalty u/s 271AAA of Rs. 7,00,650/- at the rate of 10% of the undisclosed income of Rs. 70,06,500/-. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the penalty. Aggrieved, asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me" 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 Chief Commissioner or Commissioner before the date of the search; or (ii) any income of the specified previous year represented, either wholly or partly, by any entry in respect of an expense recorded in the books of account or other documents maintained in the normal course relating to the specified previous year which is found to be false and would not have been found to be so had the search not been conducted; (b ) "specified previous year" means the previous year- (i) which has ended before the date of search, but the date of filing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 for such year has not expired before the date of search and the assessee has not fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e seized. Comments please. Sir you take action as per law in respect of seizure." 13. Ld. Counsel pointed to one of the fact noted by the ld. AO in the penalty order in paragraph 6(vi) according to which"it was only in the course of certain seizure operation conducted in respect of the assessee and statement recorded and given on oath by the assessee on 26.01.2011, it was revealed and confirmed by the assessee that the property was in fact sold at a sale consideration of Rs. 76.50 lakhs."Thus, ld. Counsel submitted that assessee had admitted the income and has specified the manner in which the income was earned. To further corroborate this assertion, Ld. Counsel referred to the assessment order wherein the fact of enquiry conducted by the ADIT (Inv.), Jalandhar is noted which revealed that assessee had sold land situated at Chahal Nagar, Phagwara measuring 18 marlas @ 4.25 lakhs per marlas and the deal was the done through broker named Shri Avtar Singh. He thus claimed that the transaction carried out by the assessee was bona fide. It was further submitted by the Ld. Counsel that income from the sale proceeds of the land has been duly reported in the computation and income-tax r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
