TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 456
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of appeal raised by the appellant are as under :- "1. That the CIT(A) has, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty order passed by the AO. The penalty order is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 2. That the CIT(A) has, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty of Rs. 16,55,218/- levied by the AO u/s 271 AAA . 3. That the CIT(A) has , in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, erred on facts and in law in observing that the case of the appellant does not fit into the scope of Sec 271 AAA . 4. That the CIT(A) has, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....income of Rs. 88,46,380/- on 08.12.2009. The assessee also filed a letter dated 21.01.2010 with reference to earlier letter dated 17.03.2009 declaring the additional income of Rs. 47,79,685/- (Rs 47,79,685/- is part of Rs. 88,46,380/-) and also explained the manner in which the income is earned i.e. trading in various commodities and real estate and also stated that this fact is substantiated from the seized material. It was also stated that the surrender made during the course of search vide letter dated 17.03.2009 is modified to that extent. The assessee filed another letter before the AO on 28.12.2010 further modifying his surrender made on 17.03.2009 by declaring additional income of Rs. 1,17,72,500/- for the relevant AY 2009-10 in addi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he surrender was of Rs. 17 crores and the declared income is much less and hence he confirmed the action of the AO. 6. During the course of hearing, the ld counsel for the assessee submitted that the letter dated 17.03.2009 was filed in continuation of the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act and this fact is mentioned in the letter itself. The amount of Rs. 17 crores was surrendered to cover all the entities of the group and all the family members of the group including the assessee. The last panchnama of the group was drawn on the dates when the lockers of the family members of the group were operated. It was the search on the whole group and not on the assessee only and as such it cannot be said that the letter dated 17.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mposed. He submitted that the assessee had surrendered Rs. 17 crores but did not pay the tax on that amount. He referred to the provisions of the Act and stated that the assessee has not shown the manner of income earned. He submitted that the letters filed by the assessee are not in consonance with the provisions of the Act. According to him, the conditions of Section 271AAA(2) of the Act are not fulfilled. It is stated that the assessee has not paid the tax on Rs. 1,17,72,500/- which was surrendered vide letter dated 28.02.2010 as it was not part of the returned income and as such the penalty under section 271 AAA of the Act is rightly imposed. 9. In the rejoinder, the ld counsel for the assessee submitted on instructions that the tax ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de in respect of income belonging to him based on the seized documents. There is no dispute about the fact that the AO assessed the same income as declared or surrendered by the assessee. The AO has not assessed the income of Rs. 17 crores but has assessed the income at the same amount declared or surrendered by the assessee on the basis of the seized documents. 12. It is not the case of the revenue that the income belonging to the assessee was more than what is surrendered by him. The assessee has modified the surrender made during the course of search on 17.03.2009 and as such it cannot be that it is a case of retraction because the income declared by the assessee which is assessed by the AO. The letter dated 17.03.2009 was filed befor....