TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 1373
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....10-11 confirming the penalty levied u/s 271AAA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') on the grounds inter alia that :- "1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in levying penalty u/s 271AAA of Rs. 39,14,442/-. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271AAA of Rs. 39,14,442/-, more so when penalty was initiated & levied by Ld. A.O. only on the ground that manner of earning undisclosed income was not substantiated and thus, Ld. CIT(A) has exceeded the jurisdiction. 3. That having regard to the facts a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he undisclosed income has been earned. 4. Assessee carried the matter by way of appeal before the ld. CIT (A) who has confirmed the penalty by dismissing the appeals. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal. 5. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Undisputedly, the entire case is based upon the search and seizure operation conducted on 02.09.2009 at the business as well as residential premises in cases closely associated with M/s. Imperial Auto Industries Ltd. wherein total addition a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is 02.09.2009 and due date of return was 31.07.2010 for the year under assessment. It is also not in dispute that the assessee has filed return on 15.10.2010. 10. Ld. AR for the assessee challenging the impugned order contended inter alia that the amount of cash seized of Rs. 31,00,000/- was adjusted towards the total tax liability of the assessee; that the return of income has been filed and all the taxes have been paid within the due date i.e. 15.10.2010 (extended from 30.09.2010 vide F.No.225/72/2010-ITA.II dated 27.09.2010) and as such penalty is not sustainable. F.No.225/72/2010-ITA.II dated 27.09.2010 is extracted for ready perusal as under :- "F.No. 225/72/2010-ITA.II Government of India Ministry of Finance Department....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....92,030/- is due to the assessee. 13. When it is proved on record that the assessee has paid the due taxes and interest thereon prior to 15.10.2010, which is due date as per F.No.225/72/2010-ITA.II dated 27.09.2010 (supra), on which return of income was filed, the assessee is entitled for immunity u/s 271AAA (2)(i) and there is no question of levying the penalty on the assessee. 14. Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee in case of Shri Manav Sardana vs. DCIT in ITA No.4447/Del/2016 order dated 10.06.2019 by returning following findings :- "5. Bare perusal of the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT (A) shows that the penalty has been confirmed by holding that the assessee has no....