2019 (2) TMI 1673

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssment years 2011-12, Revenue preferred this appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has been deriving income from business. There was search and seizure operations under section 132(1) of the Act at the residential as well as the office premises of the assessee on 28/1/2011. Pursuant to the notice issued under section 142 (1) of the Act assessee filed a return of income declaring an income of Rs. 23,22,78,376/- alter making total surrender amounting to Rs. 23 crores. Assessment was completed under section 153B (1) (b) of the Act on 28/3/2013 at the returned income. While completing the assessment, learned assessing officer initiated proceedings under section 271 AAA of the Act and concluded them by order dated 27/9/2013 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rdinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Pradeep Aggarwal and submitted that the penalty cannot be sustained in the case of Vikas Agrawal also. 5. Ld. DR heavily relied on the orders of the assessing officer and submitted that in the absence of fulfilment of any of the requirements under section 271 AAA, Ld. C1T(A) is not justified in deleting the penalty. She placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Smt. Ritu Singhal (201 8) 92 taxmann.com 224 (del) in support of her contention that where the assessee did not specify in search proceedings as to how he derived undisclosed income and under what head it fell in, it could not be concluded, that the assessee had fulfilled requirements of section 132....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....isions Ld. CIT(A) directed the deletion of the penalty. 8. We have gone through the order dated 15/10/2018 in ITA No. 1 100/del/2015 in the ease of Pradeep Aggarwal where the facts are identical to the facts involved in this matter. A coordinate Bench of this Tribunal while noticing the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Shahlon Silk Mills in ITA No. 823 of 2017 order dated 5/02/2018 and the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Smt. Ritu Singal to the contrary, recorded a finding that inasmuch as the assessee falls under the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court is not binding on the assessee. It, therefore, reached a con....