2020 (5) TMI 180

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... referred to as 'the Act') amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- by the Assessing Officer and as confirmed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals). 3. At the outset, we notice that the present appeal is time barred by 31 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit along with condonation of delay petition. We have gone through the condonation petition as well as the affidavit and have found that reasons specified therein are justified and that the delay cannot be attributed to the deliberate conduct of the assessee neither through intention nor through action. The reasons for delay in filing the appeal late were beyond the control of the assessee and even the Ld. DR stated that he has no objection, if the delay is condoned. In view of the matter, we condone the delay ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in respect of certain assets found during the search, the sources in respect of which Shri Sunil Kotecha was not in a position to explain. (iii) The declaration of additional income was made merely to cover up certain mistakes and incorrect accounting of transactions in respect of the assessee. (iv) No undisclosed income has been pointed out at any stage of the search or assessment proceedings. (v) The additional income offered is neither represented by any asset or any entry made in the books of account of the assessee. (vi) The additional income has been declared by the assessee to cooperate with the department and to avoid protracted litigation. These contentions of the assessee did not find favour with the Assessing Officer and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Bundle No. B-1 in A.Y.2012-13 and it qualifies as undisclosed income for this relevant year. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) held that the Assessing Officer was fully justified in levying penalty u/s.271AAA of the Act and the same was upheld. 6. That before the Bench, the Ld. AR of the assessee vehemently argued that in the entire statement recorded in the proceedings u/s.132(4) of the Act, there was no specific question asking to Mr. Sunil Kotecha, Director of the assessee company regarding the said seized Loose Paper No.7 in Bundle No. B-1. The Ld. AR further demonstrated by filing copy of the statement of Mr. Sunil Kotecha at Pages 24 to 35 of the paper book wherein there was no mention of such seized Loose Paper No.7 nor any question p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2010-11 order dated 26.06.2015 wherein it has been observed by the Tribunal while observing the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Delhi Bench in the case of Neerat Singhal Vs. ACIT, 146 ITD 152 ( Delhi Trib.) that " levy of penalty u/s.271AAA is not justified in absence of any query raised by the authorized officer during the course of recording of statement u/s.132(4) about the manner in which undisclosed income has been derived and about its substantiation." The Pune Bench of the Tribunal had given relief to the assessee. 6.2 Reverting to the facts of the present case, the Ld. AR of the assessee contended that as demonstrated by him, in the entire proceedings u/s.132(4) of the Act, no question was raised by the Revenue A....