TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (5) TMI 1179
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....own in sub-section(2) of section 271AAA of the Act have not been fulfilled by the assessee. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation was carried on 3.9.2008 at the business and residential premises of the assessee during which incriminating evidence were gathered. Consequently, the assessee filed return on 17.8.2010 declaring total income at Rs. 4,53,97,080/- u/s 143(3) of the Act on 16.12.2010. Consequently, penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act was initiated and order was passed on 11.3.2013 vide which penalty of Rs. 46 lakhs was imposed. Aggrieved, the assessee went before the ld. CIT(A) who has deleted this penalty. The revenue has come in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal against this deletion of pen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... prescribed method to indicate the manner in which income was generated when the definition of 'undisclosed income' has been defined in the Act itself when no income of the specified previous year represented "either wholly or partly' which onus lay upon the assessee stood discharged. Therefore, levy of penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act has been correctly deleted by the ld. CIT(A). 6. We have further found that this issue stands covered against the revenue by the ITAT Jodhpur Bench in the case of The Dy. CIT Vs. Shri Mansoor Ali Hitawala ITA No. 530/JU/2013 decided on 05.03.014 for A.Y. 2010-11 wherein at para 8 the Tribunal has held as under: "8. After considering the rival submissions, we are inclined to go alongwith the ld. CIT(A). It is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lty u/s 271AAA of the Act cannot be imposed. In this regard, decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel [2006] 152 Taxman 290 [All] and the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mahendra C. Shah [2008] 172 Taxman 58 [Guj] are relevant. Moreover, from the statements, we have observed that the authorized officer has not specifically asked to the assessee during such proceedings about the manner in which the assessee has earned undisclosed income. Regarding observation of the A.O. that the assessee should have appealed against the initiation of penalty proceedings, there is no such provision u/s 246 (1) to file appeal against such initiation of penalty proceedings. ....