TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 203
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "1. The learned CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the penalty levied by the AO u/s. 271AAB r.w.s. 274 of the IT Act to an extent of Rs. 26,73,750/- 2. The penalty proceeding initiated by notice u/s. 271AAB r.w.s. 274 dated 16.03.2015 is bad in law. 3. In the course of appeal proceedings the appellant filed detailed written submissions with CIT(A) on 19.11.2018. In view of the facts narrated in the above written submissions both on merits and legality the appellant prays the penalty of Rs. 26,73,750/- levied by the AO and sustained by CIT(A) may be deleted and justice rendered." 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual and proprietor of M/s. SS Jewellery, Dharmapuri. The assessee filed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sales made from 7.12.2012 to 11.12.2012. The AO rejected the arguments of the assessee on the ground that the assessee was not maintaining books of accounts for his business and further, no cash book /documents were produced and thus, made addition of Rs. 89,12,500/- u/s. 69A of the Act as unexplained money. 5. Subsequently, penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAB of the Act was initiated and accordingly notice u/s. 271AAB r.w.s. 274 of the Act was issued. In response, the assessee submitted that he had filed return in response to notice u/s. 153A of the Act and admitted income towards seized cash of Rs. 89,12,500/- and also paid tax. Therefore, penalty cannot be levied u/s. 271AAB of the Act. The AO, rejected arguments of the assessee and levie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Act. Therefore, the AO has rightly levied penalty under clause (c) of section 271AAB of the Act and their order should be upheld. 8. We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. As regards the legal arguments taken by the assessee in light of notice issued u/s. 271AAB r.w.s. 274 of the Act, in light of the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565 and decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs SSA's Emerald Meadows [2016] 242 Taxman 180 (SC), we find that there is no merit in arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee in light of above two judgments, because penalty....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....backed by cogent reasons, because clause (c) of section 271AAB of the Act is applicable, if assessee does not admit undisclosed income in the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act, and also not declared said income in the return of income furnished within the specified period and pays the tax altogether with interest, if any, in respect of the undisclosed income. In this case, the assessee has admitted undisclosed income in the return of income filed in response to notice u/s. 153A of the Act and also specified the manner in which said income has been derived by filing necessary bills for cash sales made during the period between 07.12.2012 to 11.12.2012. Further, the assessee has admitted undisclosed income in the return of income and ....