AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 1513
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Learned authorized representative is very fair in not disputing the same during the course of hearing. We thus condone the impugned delay of 25 days in filing. This main appeal is taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. The Revenue's / appellant's sole substantive ground raised in the instant appeal pleads that CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in reversing the Assessing Officer's action imposing sec. 271AAB penalty of Rs.26 lac. imposed by the Assessing Officer in his order dated 27.03.2015. The CIT(A)'s detailed discussion on above sole issue reads as follows:- "3. I have considered the finding of the AO in the assessment order and the written submissions as well as oral submissions made by the AR during the appellate proceedings. 4. Appeal on grounds no 1, 2 and 3 are against the imposition of penalty u/s 271AAB (1)(a). Brief facts of the case are that a) Search and seizure proceedings were conducted on 20-12-2012 and thereafter at the residential as well as business premises of BLA Group. Panchanarna was also drawn in the name of the assessee. b) During the course of search proceeding, while making the statement u/s 132(4) of the Act, a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee as earned out of the business in which the assessee is engaged. By dint of assesses own submissions, the assessee was found to have accumulated an undisclosed income of Rs. 2,60,00,000/- which was not recorded on or before the date of search in the books of account or other documents maintained in the normal course of business. By virtue of the very nature of disclosure by the assessee himself, that such unaccounted income was generated out of transactions in business it was involved in the additional income of Rs. 2,60,00,000/- disclosed only during the course of search & seizure operation partakes the character of undisclosed income. 6. During the appellate proceedings the AR has made oral submission as well as filed a written submission on this issue which is as under: Aggrieved by the said penalty order of the Assessing officer, I have filed an appeal before your good-self to consider the above matter in the principle of natural justice. I re-iterate t.hat such offering of Rs. Rs. 2,60,00,0001- was made suo moto and to buy peace and was not backed by any evidence of undisclosed income or any undisclosed assets / items that had been found / inventorised by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vant factors in mind. The AR has also brought on record the case of Pubjab Tyres (Pubjab Tyres [1986] 162 ITR 517 (Madhya Pradesh), the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh) in which it was held that when surrender is made to purchase peace or for other similar reason, surrender cannot amount to admission, constituting evidence of concealment in penalty proceedings. The AR has brought on record the case law of Sudharsan Silk and Sarees, 300 ITR 30 (Supreme Court) in this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has heId that if the appellant offers any amount for taxation for the purpose of purchasing peace and assessment has' been made based upon the aforesaid offerings, even if no assurance in writing is given by the searching party, it may be clearly inferred that such an inducement must have been given by searching party. When only partial evidence or no evidence in support of concealment was detected during the search, why would a person go to offer a higher amount unless he was promised some reciprocal benefits like not being visited by penalty. Thus, it was held that where additions have been made based on assessee's own offerings, penalty provision shall not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sue conducted in assessee's case on 20.12.2012. He heavily relies upon assessee's admission stating his undisclosed income of Rs.2,79,15,065/-. His case therefore is that the same formed sufficient reasons for the Assessing Officer to imposed the impugned penalty. We sought to know from learned CIT-DR as to whether the authorized officer had found any specified asset i.e. any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or things as per explanation (c) forming of sec. 271AAB. There is no such material indicated during the course of hearing. We find that co-ordinate bench's order in ITA No.538/Kol/2017 in ACIT vs. Sri Kanwar Sain Gupta decided on 29.06.2018 declines Revenue's identical arguments para 3-4 follows as under:- "3. We now come to the impugned penalty proceedings. The Assessing Officer levied penalty in question in his order dated 23.02.2016 by quoting section 27lAAB of the Act on the ground that all the relevant conditions stipulated therein stood duly satisfied qua the above stated undisclosed income. The CIT(A) reverses the Assessing Officer's action as follows: "I find that during the search and seizure operation u/s 132 in this c....