TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 1947
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was search in the premises of the assessee on 24-08-2011 u/s.132 of the Act. During this action, assessee offered additional income of Rs. 25 crores for the assessment year under consideration. Assessee included the additional income in the returns filed in response to notice u/s.153A of the Act and claimed deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act. However, the AO disallowed the claim of deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271AAA of the Act and eventually levied penalty of Rs. 2,78,48,625/-. In the First Appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) confirmed the penalty levied by the AO. Aggrieved with the confirmation of penalty, the assessee is in appeal before us with the following grounds/additional grounds : "1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m of 25 crores in the search action and filed the return of income. Subsequently, assessee revised the income by decreasing the income offered by the assessee during the search action. However, rejecting the claim of the assessee, the AO made addition of the same and initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271AAA of the Act. Bringing our attention to the additional ground filed by the assessee, Ld. Counsel submitted that the AO failed to record proper satisfaction while initiating the penalty. Ld. Counsel submitted that "undisclosed income" is the essence of the penalty u/s.271AAA of the Act and drew our attention to the definition of "Undisclosed income". This section applies to the cases covered by the search action initiated on or after 01-06-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....all the material facts are available on record. For this proposition, Ld. Counsel relied on various decisions including the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383, the decision in the case of Jute Corporation of India reported in 187 ITR 688 and the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High court in the case of Ahmedabad Electricity Company reported in 199 ITR 351. 5. In support of his contentions, Ld. Counsel brought our attention to the order of Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Shri Vikas Baurao Takawane in ITA No.2245/PUN/2014, dated 26-07-2017 and submitted that similar issue came up for adjudication before the Tribunal. In this case, the Tribunal held that such initiation and levy of penalty....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the case CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom.) as well as the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565. 8. Further, we have perused the order of Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Vikas Bapurao Takawane (supra). In this case, we find the Tribunal had an occasion to deal with an identical issue. Contents of Para No.6 and 7 of the said order are relevant. We therefore proceed to extract the said paragraphs below for the sake of completeness of the order. "6. A bare perusal of section 271AAA shows that the penalty is levied in respect of undisclosed income. The expression 'undisclosed income' has been defined in Explanation to sec....