TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 636
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in deleting the penalty of Rs. 1,98,79,572/- imposed u/s. 271AAB(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by holding that the amount of Rs. 6,62,65,239/- would not fall in the definition of 'undisclosed income' by ignoring the fact that the assessee has itself disclosed additional income during the course of search. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. 2. At the time of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that the issue is fully covered in his favour and the appeal of the Revenue may be dismissed. Examining the submission he was required to demonstrate the correctness of the statement from the fac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ltd. and its allied concerns and also at the residential premises of the Directors, various documents, loose papers & assets have been found & seized by the respective Authorized Officers & the department has pointed out certain discrepancies to us. The petitioners in a keen desire to purchase peace of mind and to avoid litigation & multiplicity of proceedings, hereby offer a sum of Rs. 80,00,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty Crores Only) as additional income over & above the books results, to cover various discrepancies such as cash, stock, assets deductions, disallowable expenses etc. Detailed bifurcation shall be submitted after looking into the entire seized documents in due course of time. The above declaration is made voluntarily witho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch is found to be false and would not have been found to be so had the search not been conducted. Also, the assessee had not specified in the surrender letter that the surrender was made u/s. 14A for A.Y. 2013-14 and the head under which this amount was offered was disclosed later by the assessee. Even if the disclosure for the year under consideration relates to section 14A still it would fall under provisions of section 271AAB(3)(c)(ii) as it would be disclosure of the expenditure in relation to income not includible in the total income by the assessee and the assessee would not have surrendered the amount related to expenses under section 14A if the search would not have been conducted. 9. Thus, the replies of the assessee are n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... submission that the AO vide his order dated 06.05.2020 has passed an order giving appeal effect to the aforesaid order of the ITAT. In the circumstances, it was his submission that the departmental appeal may be dismissed. 5. We have gone through the material available on record. For the sake of clarity and completeness, we deem it necessary to extract the relevant finding which is under challenge in the present proceedings: 4.1 Ground of Appeal No. 1 relates to imposition of penalty amounting to Rs. 1,98,79,572/-. The appellant is aggrieved against the order of the AO imposing penalty u/s. 271AAB. The AO has mentioned that a search u/s. 132 was conducted in this case on 11.09.2013 and notice u/s. 153A(1) was issued on 24.03.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... derived nor substantiated the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived. As per the AO, accordingly, the case falls within the provision of section 271AAB(1)(c), attracting penalty @ 30%. Thus, a penalty of Rs. 1,98,79,572/- was levied u/s. 271AAB. The facts of the case, the basis of penalty imposed by the AO and the arguments of the AR during the course of appellate proceedings have been considered. The AR has submitted that the amount under consideration for levy of penalty is the disallowance u/s. 14A offered after making statement u/s. 132(4). As per the AR, the appellate made a disallowance of Rs. 6,62,65,239/- while filing the return and during the assessment vide letter dated 23.03.2016, had information the AO that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e facts including the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional ITAT in the case of M/s. SEL Textile Ltd. in ITA No. 695/Chd/201 dated 18.04.2019 relied upon by the AR and the appeal effect given by the AO in the present case relating to the quantum addition, the penalty of Rs. 1,98,79,572/- levied by the AO u/s. 271AAB, in respect of disallowance u/s. 14A, is not found sustainable and therefore deleted. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is allowed. 4.2 Grounds of Appeal Nos. 2 & 3 relate to issue of penalty notice and do not require separate comments in view of the adjudication of the preceding ground. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed. 5.1. A perusal of the same would show that the CIT(A) has quashed ....