AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 1363
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... debtors/advances stating that no nexus has been established, Rs. 1,15,765/- by making disallowance part of expenses debited under various heads stating that the expenses have not been wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and Rs. 2,199/- on account of difference in account of pharmaceutical companies. 3. The ld CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The assessee preferred appeal before the ITAT, Jaipur Benches, Jaipur and after the order of the ITAT, the addition of Rs. 1,17,964/- (1,15,765 + 2199) made by making disallowance out of various expenses and difference in account of Pharmaceutical companies was remained and the balance addition of Rs. 14,29,652/- was deleted. The Assessing Officer imposed the penalty of Rs. 4,05,000/- being 10% of additional income of Rs. 40,47,535/- declared by the assessee in the return of income. 4. While pleading on behalf of the assessee, the ld AR of the assessee has submitted as under:- The Ld CIT(A) confirmed the penalty u/s 271AAA of I.Tax by holding that the assessee has not clarified and thus has not substantiated the manner in which assessee derived undisclosed income. The lower authorities failed to appreciate the st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 furnished the return of income for the previous year before the said date; or (ii) in which search was conducted.'. Since in the case of the assessee: - a) the additional income was duly surrendered at the time of search, (The copy of statements is enclosed herewith) b) the manner in which the additional income was earned was also substantiate (as explained in statemen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eal No. 565 of 2015 Dated: - 14 September 2015. He further relied on the following decisions: (i) ITAT Jaipur Bench in case of Late Smt Sudha Patni Vs ACIT ITA No 963/JP/2015 order dated 09/08/2016. (ii) SPS STEEL & POWER LTD. vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ITAT, KOLKATA TRIBUNAL (B) (2015) 44 CCH 0286 Kol Trib. (iii) 2016 (7) TMI 506 - ITAT Delhi in case of Sh. Vinod Chander Sinha Versus ACIT, Circle-2, New Delhi ITA No.3699/Del/2014 Dated: - 13 June 2016 (iv) 2016 (4) TMI 949 - ITAT Visakhapatnam in case of ACIT, Circle-1 (1) , Visakhapatnam Versus M/s. Sai Ram Builders and Vica-versa I.T.A.No.738/Vizag/2013, C.O. No.12/Vizag/2014 Dated: - 18 March 2016 (v) Sunil Kumar Bansal Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ITAT, Chandigarh Tribunal (A) (2015) 37 ITR (Trib) 0576 (Chandigarh). 5. On the contrary, the ld SR. DR has vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below. 6. We have heard both the sides on this issue. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty by holding that the assessee has not clarified and not substantiated the manner in which the assessee derived undisclosed income. In the statement recorded U/s 132(4) of the Act when the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee paid tax, together with interest in respect of the undisclosed income and filed return of income, which stand accepted in assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. On perusal of the above, it is seen that assessee has offered for tax his undisclosed income (Rs. 2,71,91,880/-) including jewellery as under :- Jewellery Rs. 2,25,69,380/- Cash Rs. 46,22,500/- ---------------------- Rs. 2,71,91,880/- We find that the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of the coordinate bench of the Jaipur Tribunal rendered in the case of DCIT vs. Shri Rahul Mangal & Others in ITA No. 1026/JP/2015 & Ors. wherein on similar facts the claim of the assessee was allowed by deleting the addition made by the AO, thereby dismissed the appeals of the of the revenue. We also find support from the decision of the Coordinate Bench rendered in the case of ACIT (OSD) vs. M/s. Kanakia Spaces Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 6763/Mum/2011 A.Y. 2007-08, wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal has held as under :- " 3.1. Ld. CIT (A) after considering the submission deleted the penalty by stating as under:- "I have carefully considered the submissions made by the appellant in respect of the penalty levied ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ovisions considering the setting in which such statement is being recorded. Secondly, considering the social environment it is not possible to expect from an assessee, whether literate or illiterate, to be specific and to the point regarding the conditions stipulated in the second exception while making statement under section 132(4). Even if the statement does not specify the manner in which the income is derived, if the income is declared and tax thereon paid, there would be substantial compliance not warranting any further denial of the benefit." 4.1 In this case, the assessee was asked to explain the entries in the 'work-in-progress sheet' and assessee in the course of statement offered the income with a plea not to initiate penalty proceedings. The assessee was not asked about the manner in which such income was earned and also to substantiate the manner in which undisclosed income was derived. The provision of clause-2 of Explanation-V appended to section 271(1)(c) are similar to section 271AAA(2). The scope and meaning has been lucidly explained by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Radha Kishan Goel (2005) 278 ITR 454 (All.), which was followed by th....