9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1566X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with interest, if any, has not been fulfilled by the assessee. In view of the above, first substantial questions raised by the appellant is answered in favour of the Revenue holding that compliance of all three conditions in Sub-clause (2) of Section 271AAA of the Act are mandatory. Reduction of penalty commensurate with quantum of tax which the appellant has deposited, is also answered against the assessee and in favour of the revenue, because, admittedly, appellant had not disclosed the income at all. But for search, the same could not have been unearthed. Having filed the returns, the assessee did not comply with condition No. 3 in Sub-Section (2). If the second question were to be answered in favour of assessee, it will amount to pla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated proceedings under Section 271-AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) and imposed a penalty of Rs. 47,80,261/- at the rate of 10% of the undisclosed income, vide order dated September 30, 2013, passed by the DCIT. The said order was challenged before the CIT (A) [Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)] and it was allowed in part with regard to assessment year 2010-11 and the appeal challenging the penalty for assessment year 2011-12 stood dismissed. The Assessee challenged the said order in ITA No. 667/Bang/2015. By it's order dated October 17, 2016, the ITAT [Income Tax Appellate Tribunal] has dismissed the appeal. 6. Shri Ashok Kulkarni, for the assessee submitted that assessee has admitted the inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that search was conducted on November 25, 2010 and as late as October 17, 2016, the Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that assessee had not paid tax and interest. Since the third condition is not complied with, it cannot be held that Sub-section (1) would not apply to the assessee's case. 9. We have carefully considered rival submissions and perused the records. 10. Undisputed facts of the case are, according to the learned advocate for the assessee, the assessee had admitted an undisclosed income of 2,27,65,580/- and filed returns showing income of Rs. 4,78,02,616/-. The principal argument is that nothing was found during the course of search; assessee had voluntarily filed return of income more than what he had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
