TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 1006
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(A) has also erred in not considering that the assessee had paid taxes alongwith interest in respect of undisclosed income at the time of filing return of income as per provisions of section 271AAA and considering the same, no penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer on this ground. 4. That submission filed during the course of hearing has not been considered properly. 5. That the Appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off." 3. The only issue involved in the present appeal relates to the levy of penalty under section 271 AAA of the Income Tax Act,1961. 4. Brief facts relating to the case are that a search and seizure operation was carried out at the residential/business premises of the Pavitra group of cases on 16/02/2012. The assessee, Sh.Satish Goyal, was one of the persons covered under section 132 of the Act. During the course of search a total surrender, for the Group, of undisclosed income over and above the regular income, of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- was made, under section 132 (4) of the Act, vide the statement of Sh.Harsh Goyal. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iable and it would be sufficient compliance if the income had been disclosed and taxes paid thereon. Ld. CIT(A), after going through the submissions made by the assessee held that the assessee had duly admitted the undisclosed income in the statement recorded under section 132 (4) of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) further agreed with the contention of the assessee that since its case is identical to that in the case of Sh. Sanjeev Goel, decided by the Chandigarh bench in ITA No. 108 and 109/Chandigarh/2015, the assessee had also substantiated the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived. But, Ld. CIT(A) thereafter found that the taxes due on the surrendered income had not been paid by the due date of filing of return and had been paid much beyond the due date. Therefore, relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Gupta vs CIT (2006) 287 ITR 376, Ld.CIT(A) stated that the assessee had not complied with one of the necessary conditions for claiming immunity from the levy of penalty as per the provisions of section 271AAA of the Act and therefore upheld the levy of penalty. 6. Aggrieved by the same the assessee filed the pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(A), we find relied upon the order of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Gupta vs CIT (2006) 287 ITR 376 for upholding the levy of penalty. The Hon'ble High Court in the impugned case held as under : "It was not in dispute that certain undisclosed assets were found from the premises of the assessee at the time of search and besides that certain books of account and other documents were also found from which it was evident that the assessee had earned undisclosed income as well. In the statement made under section 132(4) of the Act on the date of search, the assessee surrendered a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs as concealed income for the year in question. The date for filing of return for the assessment year in question had not yet expired. The assessee did not even file the return on or before the due date. He filed the same on 19.1.1995. What to talk of payment of tax and interest, if any, due from the undisclosed income, so surrendered by the assessee on the due date, the assessee did not even pay the amount along with the belated return filed on 19.1. 1995. From a reading of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it is evident that this concession is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of clause (2) of Explanation 5, which has been quoted above. Three conditions have got to be satisfied by the assessee for claiming immunity from payment of - penalty under clause (2) of Explanation 5 to Section 271(l)(c). The first condition was that the assessee must make a statement under Section 132(4) in the course of search stating that the unaccounted assets and incriminating documents found from his possession during the search have been acquired out of his income, which has not been disclosed in the return of income to be furnished before expiry of time specified in Section 139(1). Such statement was made by the K.arta during the search which concluded on August 1, 1987. It is not in dispute that condition No.l was fulfilled. The second condition for availing of the immunity from penalty under Section 271(l)(c) was that the assessee should specify, in his statement under Section 132(4), the manner in which such income stood derived. Admittedly, the second condition, in the present case also stood satisfied. According to the Department, the assessee was not entitled to immunity under clause (2) as he did not satisfy the third condition for availing the benefit of waiver o....