TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (12) TMI 629
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Kumar Jain is a Director. We propose to dispose all these appeals together the issue being common by way of this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The brief facts as have been brought on record that the assessee was subjected to search and seizure operation when during the course of search statements were taken on oath and assessee surrendered respective income for the impugned AYs and filed returns declaring the same in their returns pursuant to notice u/s.153A. The Assessing Officer accepted the income as returned by the assessees being disclosure of assets made during the search operation which in the case of Pramod Kumar Jain happened to be the enhancement in the value of the house constructed and in the case o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in its return and paid tax along with interest thereon but has not substantiated the manner of deriving the same. On the basis of reduction in the surrendered amount by the assessee M/s.JRC Resources P Ltd., the learned CIT(A) partly reduced the amount of penalty from Rs. 2,22,000 to Rs. 1,90,000 whereas he confirmed the penalty of Rs. 2,30,000 for the Assessment Year 2007-08 and Rs. 2,42,000 for the Assessment Year 2008-09 in case of the assessee Shri Pramod Kumar Jain. 4. The learned Counsel for the assessees submitted that the assessee had made disclosure u/s.132(4), included it in its return the said amount and paid the tax and interest thereon. The definition of "undisclosed income" has been defined in the said Section itself when th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase of the Assessing Officer to tax the same u/s.68 applies to the manner in which an income has been earned which satisfaction has to be reached by the Assessing Officer identifying the genuineness, creditworthiness etc. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that on similarly placed facts, this Bench of ITAT, in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma & Others v. DCIT in a consolidated order pronounced on 22.12.2011 in ITA Nos.476 to 480/CTK/2011, has cancelled the penalty levied u/s.271AAA , which copy is placed on record may kindly be considered. On the legal point therefore, he also relied on the decision of ITAT, Kolkata A Bench in the case of DCIT v. Pioneer Marbles & Interiors P Ltd [(92012) 014 ITR (Trib) 0608]. The learn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... subjected to have been taxed u/s.69C.He prayed that the penalty so levied may kindly be deleted. 5. The learned DR opposed the contentions of the learned Counsel for the assessee. He submitted that having declared or surrendered the income is satisfied by the proceedings being undertaken u/s.153A therefore cannot be taken together with for non-imposition of penalty as it would result in futility of the very provision of Section 271AAA. The law provides that at the time of levy of penalty, the assessee has to specify the manner in which the income was earned. Had no search taken place, the assessee would have gone scot free even if the income was generated from the same source when part of the income was rendered to tax by way of regular b....