TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 929
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to decide this appeal ex-parte by considering the written submission filed by the assessee and arguments of the ld. DR 3.1 The assessee has raised the following grounds. ''1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case , the ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the validity of order passed by the AO. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case , the ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the penalty of Rs. 29,129/- u/s 271AAB of the Act. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case , the ld. CIT(A) erred in recording various observations in the appellate order which are contrary to the provisions of law and also against the law decided by the Hon'ble Courts.. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Act. The AO has not made any addition while passing the assessment order on this account. Since the assessee has disclosed the undisclosed income of Rs. 2,92,191/-, therefore, the penalty u/s 271AAB was initiated and finally levied by the AO. The ld. DR has submitted that in show cause notice the AO made specific charge u/s 271AAB of the Act for levying the penalty against undisclosed income. Thus the ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 4.4 We have heard the ld. DR, written submissions of the assessee as well as the relevant materials available on record. During the course of search and seizure action carried out u/s 132(1) of the Act on 2-07-2015, the assessee in her statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act disclo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....71AAB of the Act has levied the penalty @ 10% amounting to Rs. 29,219/-. The assessee has submitted in the written submission that disclosure made by the assessee was duly declared in the return of income which was accepted by the AO and as such the levy of penalty u/s 271AAB is not justified. Further, it is contended that the income disclosed by her does not fall in the definition of undisclosed income provided in explanation to Section 271AAB of the Act. The assessee has relied on the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of Rajendra Kumar Gupta vs DCIT (ITA No.359/JP/2017) and in the case Padam Chand Pungliya vs ACIT (ITA No. 112/JP/2018 dated 5-04-2019). 5.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR has submitted that disclosure and surrender wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n clause (c) of Explanation to Section 271AAB of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has considered this issue in para's 5.1 and 5.2 as under:- ''5.1 The penalty has been levied in respect of unexplained cash of Rs. 60,311/- and jewellery valued at Rs. 2,31,880/- found during search. Therefore, the income of Rs. 2,92,191/- falls within the definition of ''undisclosed income'' as given in clause (c) of Explanation to Section 271AAB. 5.2 The argument of the assessee that penalty u/s 271AAB is not mandatory is found to be supported by the judicial authorities and is therefore, acceptable in principle, but the said findings does not apply in the facts of the instant case, because, as discussed in the preceding para, in the instant case, income of Rs. 2....