9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 425X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the AO to bring on record that the additional income disclosed by the assessee is having direct link with the incriminating material found during search. In absence of the same, the penalty cannot be levied u/s 271AAB - After considering the detailed findings of the ld. CIT (A), we do not see any reason to disturb the same. Accordingly, grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. - Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member And Shri Sudhir Kumar, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Amit Goel, CA, Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate For the Revenue : Shri B.S. Anand, Sr. DR ORDER PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM: This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi [ Ld. CIT(A) , for short] dated 23.02.2024 for Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. Brief facts of the case are, a search under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ) was conducted on 06.01.2021 at the residence/business premises of Hans Group. The assessment proceedings of the assessee were transferred to Central Circle 31, New Delhi vide order under section 127 of the Act. Proceedings under section 153A of the Act were initiated by issue of notices u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 7.1 The appellant objected the penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271AAB(1A) and submitted that the AO was factually wrong in presuming that it would not have declared its income on account of LTCG and cash receipts had no search and seizure took place on the appellant. The declaration of share trading income and cash receipts in ITR are not based on any incriminating material found during the search but it was declared in the normal course. The appellant is an individual and does not maintain any books of account. Therefore, any presumption that the appellant would not have disclosed the amount is self serving and baseless. 7.2 I have carefully perused the penalty order, assessment order and the written submissions filed by the appellant. With regard to bogus LTCG / share trading appellant submitted during the assessment proceedings as under: (Query No.2) As alleged by you that I have taken bogus capital gain amounting to Rs. 2,65,83,060/- by way of bogus trading, I would like to submit that there is no bogus capital gain claimed by me in the return filed by me, During the year under consideration I have done business of share trading in which I have already shown sale of shares amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s 132 did not take place. The appellant is an individual and does not maintain any books of account, therefore, it is not a case of no entry or false entry of income or expenses in his books. The AO did not bring any other evidence on record to establish how the amount in question was covered in the definition of 'undisclosed income' in terms of section 271AAB. As the transactions pertain to F.Y. 2020-21 and appellant had declared them in ITR as income from share trading and cash receipts and they were accepted by the AO, it cannot be held to undisclosed income in terms of section 271AAB. Therefore, penalty u/s 271AAB(1A) held to be not sustainable and is deleted. 6. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us by raising following grounds of appeal :- 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty u/s 271 AAB of the Act. 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty u/s 271 AAB of the Act of amounting to Rs. 1,64,03,339/-. 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, tile Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f account, therefore, it is not a case of no entry or false entry of income or expenses in her books. Assessing Officer did not bring any other evidence on record to establish how the amount in question was covered in the definition of undisclosed income in terms of section 271AAB of the Act. After bringing to our notice the detailed findings of the ld. CIT (A), ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer is not justified to impose the penalty when the income disclosed by the assessee is not falling under the definition of undisclosed income given in section 271AAB of the Act. Therefore, he supported the findings of the ld. CIT (A). 9. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that after search conducted in assessee s place, the assessee has filed her return of income on 14.01.2022 u/s 139 of the Act declared the income which includes alleged undisclosed income by the AO. However, we observed that the assessment was completed by accepting the return of income filed by the assessee u/s 139 of the Act and accepted the income declared by the assessee. We observed from the findings of the ld. CIT (A) that the income declared by the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
