TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 173
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the Assessing Officer invoked penalty proceeding under Section 271AAB of the Act. The Assessing Officer consequently passed order under Section 271AAB of the Act treating an amount of Rs. 2,77,49,596/- included in the ROI 'as undisclosed income' susceptible to penalty under Section 271AAB of the Act. Consequently, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty @ 30% on the impugned undisclosed income which was quantified at Rs. 83,24,879/-. 3. Aggrieved by the imposition of penalty, assessee preferred the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The CIT(A) on analysis of facts and law found that the ingredients of Section 271AAB of the Act are not fulfilled and therefore held that the penalty imposed by the AO is outside the sanction of law. The penalty imposed was thus deleted. The relevant operative para of the order of the CIT(A) is reproduced hereunder :- "7.2 I have carefully perused the penalty order, assessment order and the written submissions filed by the appellant. I have also perused assessment records and statement u/s 132(4) of the appellant. With regard to bogus LTCG / share trading appellant submitted during the assessment proceedings as under: "(Query No.2) A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant is an individual and does not maintain any books of account, therefore, it is not a case of no entry or false entry of income or expenses in his books. I have also perused statement of the appellant recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act on 07.03.2021 provided by the AO on 20.02.2024 in which excel sheet containing the details of share trading was confronted. The relevant questions are reproduced as under: From the statement of the appellant and the excel sheet it is observed that the amounts shown in the sheet are gross sale amount of share and they have not been admitted to be bogus transactions. The AO did not bring any other evidence on record to establish how the amount in question was covered in the definition of 'undisclosed income' in terms of section 271AAB. As the transactions pertain to F.Y. 2020-21 and appellant had declared them in ITR as income from share trading and same was accepted by the AO, it cannot be held to undisclosed income in terms of section 271AAB. Therefore, penalty u/s 271AAB(1A) held to be not sustainable and is deleted. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed." 5. Aggrieved by the relief granted by the CIT(A), the Reve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... statement in ordinary course cannot be regarded as undisclosed income. Pertinently, LTCG is not exempt under Section 10(38) of the Act in A.Y. 2021-22 in question but was regarded as taxable income and advance tax prior to search were also paid. Such taxable income routed through regular bank account coupled with payment of advance Tax cannot be regarded as 'undisclosed income' defined in Explanation to Section 271AAB of the Act. Therefore, the provision of Section 271AAB of the Act stand ousted. 9. The learned Counsel further adverted to the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of the family member of the assessee in the matter of DCIT vs. Tanya Jaiswal ITA No.2148/Del/2024 Assessment Year 2021-22 order dated 06.09.2024. It was pointed out that the penalty was imposed by the AO under Section 271AAB of the Act in the hands of the wife also in identical factual matrix arising in the same search. The learned Counsel pointed out that in the identical facts, the Co- ordinate Bench of Tribunal has declined to entertain the appeal of the Revenue in the same search carrying similar facts. The learned Counsel thus submitted that the identical fact situation has alr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and against the Revenue by the decision rendered in Tanya Jaiswal. 16. In the totality of circumstances, where imposition of penalty under Section 271AAB of the Act is left to the statutory discretion of AO and not being automatic, we are of the considered view that extenuating circumstances exists to exonerate the assessee from clutches of penalty provisions under Section 271AAB of the Act. Hence, we decline to interfere. We thus see no reason to interfere with the view taken by CIT(A). 17. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.09.2024 ============= Document 1 Ans Question 3 I am showing you the seized material Annexure A-8, seized from the premise of Vandana and Ranjana CA at 112, Sector 16 B, Ghaziabad, along with the answer in response to Q. No. 28 by Sh. Vineet Kumar in his sworn statement taken during the search at the premise from where the Annexure A-8 was seized. 026 am showing you tract of the Whatsapp messages in twify papers recr your mobile phone no. 5816895110 which has laner ventories as znner"." Please explain the conlcns of these mates ? As rave seen these wha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3.886,947 6 30.72000 Kapil Jaiswal 959,805 G 30.7.2020 Kapillaiswal 951,259 6 30.7 2020 Kapil lalswal 575.805 G 30.7 2020 Rohay Kumar Jaiswal 3,749.762 0 30.73020 Pottas Kunar Jaiswal 1,509,200 6 30.7 2020 Tanya lakwal 5,383,069 30.7.2020 Kapil alswal 3,971,000 01.12.2020 2 2.12.2010 , 0.12.2020 7 02.17.2020 01.12.2020 7 02.12.2020 Kapit Jaiswal Kapitalswel Tanya Jaiswal Tanya Jaiswal Rabras Kumar Jaiswal Rohias Kumar Jaiswal Repeat pape no h sale of Rs 4221732was not executed and revece and rigs of 42 lac was icceive mention on page 1,322,723 58940 1.319.105 584,700 1,349,588 50%,44) , 11,72023 10 13 no Cond R Repeat of page nc 9 9.7.2020 T 3.3.2020 13 11 3.7.5020 9.7.2020 Tanya Jaiswa Kalwa Rchlas Pamar balsal Rehtas Kumar Jaiswal 1,916,640 2.520056 1355275 4,076,545 12 3.7.2020 Tanya wal 6,075,915 Repret ut pepe no 33 14 fepeat of Page no 12and corected 25 7.8.202C Kapil Jaiswal 1,344525 15 78.2020 Rohtas Kumar Iniswa....