TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 1171
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(AY) 2013-14. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and/or on facts in deleting the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, of Rs. 1,18,00,000/- despite the fact that the disclosure of on- money income was made only due to the survey action by the Department and the on-money income was not accounted for in the regular books of account of the assessee on the date of survey. 2. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) may be set aside and that of Assessing Officer may be restored to the above extent. 3. Brief facts of the case are that survey u/s.131(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and also the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. R Umedbhai Jewellers Pvt.Ltd. in Tax Appeal No.549 of 2016, dated 22/08/2016. 10. We have heard the Learned Representatives for both the parties. We have also perused the material placed on record as well as the orders passed by the revenue authorities. Before we decide this issue on merits, it is necessary to evaluate the orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A) while deciding this ground. The Ld.CIT(A) has dealt with this ground in paragraph Nos.4 & 5 of his order, however, the relevant portion contained in paragraph No.5 to 5.4 of his order is reproduced hereunder: "5. I have perused the assessment orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 3.8 crore offered to tax came to the surface only because of survey, that had there been no survey that amount could not have been brought to tax, that the on-money received was unaccounted income which was admitted by the assessee when it was confronted with, the 'diary' during the survey. For the purpose of 'particular(s)' the AO has relied upon Kanbay Software India (P) Ltd. 122 TTJ 721 (Pune) wherein it was held that the expression 'particular' refers to facts, details, specifics or the information about someone or something and that the details or information about the Income' could deal with factual details of income". With due respect, I do not find that these help the case of the penalty. 5.2 I f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed. The AO is directed to delete the penalty imposed of Rs. 1.18 Cr." 11. After having gone through the facts of the present case and hearing the parties at length, we find that the assessee had offered the amount as additional business income pursuant to survey operation for the ongoing year, which was duly incorporated in the books of accounts and in the regular return of income with taxes duly paid. Since the Assessing Officer was of the view that the "unaccounted income" of Rs. 3.8 crores was offered to tax by the assessee. As the same came to the surface only because of survey and that had there been no survey, then that amount could not have been brought to tax. Therefore, it was held that the 'onmoney' received was unaccounted incom....