TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 293
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty order dated 21.08.2014 & 16.07.2014; respectively passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under s. 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning assessment year 2012-13 in both appeals. Since, both appeals raise similar grievance, these are being disposed of by common order for the sake of convenience. ITA No. 1097/Ahd/2016 (Shree Krishna Developers 2. By way of its grounds of appeal, the Revenue has impugned the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the penalty of Rs. 28 Lakhs imposed by the AO on the ground that the assessee has failed to comply with the conditions specified under s.271AAA(2) of the Act for exoneration of penalty leviable. 3. Briefly stated, a search under s. 132 of the Act was conducted on the group cases of Anil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he CIT(A) accordingly deleted the penalty imposed after analyzing the factual position in the light of judicial precedents. Without reproducing the text of the order of the CIT(A), it is observed that the CIT(A) essentially held that the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahendra C. Shah & Sidhnath Goel and concluded that the assessee has made effective and sufficient compliance to the immunity conditions of Section 271AAA(2)(ii) of the Act also. The CIT(A) accordingly deleted the penalty imposed under s.271AAA of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by the action of CIT(A) towards cancellation of penalty imposed by the AO, the Revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 7....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case) (ii) Shri Jagdishbhai B Chandarana vs. ACIT ITA No. 2199/Ahd/2016 order dated 13.02.2018 and (iii) DCIT vs. Shri Himanshu B Joshi & Ors. ITA No. 1089/Ahd/2016 & Ors. order dated 21.02.2018 wherein as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahendra C Shah [2008] 299 ITR 305 (Guj) to the effect that the obligation does not fall upon the assessee to explain the manner and substantiation thereof and in the absence of any specific query posed by the Revenue in this regard, the embargo under Section 271AAA(2)(i)&(ii) of the Act would not apply. The learned AR thus submitted that the CIT(A) has appreciated the facts in proper perspective and the action of the CIT(A) is in sync with several judicial ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the allegation for non-fulfillment of condition of Section 271AAA(2) of the Act does not survive. In view of the binding precedent, the onus would shift on the assessee to specify the manner of earning undisclosed income and substantiation thereof only upon requisite inquiry in this regard. In the absence of any specific inquiry, the assessee cannot be blamed for non-furnishing of manner of earning undisclosed income and substantiation thereof sue motu. It was not shown to us as to whether such query was put even in the course of assessment proceedings. In the absence of any inquiry, the assessee cannot be blamed for non-satisfaction of the exit clause provided under s.271AAA(2) of the Act. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the....