TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1294
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 1,58,68,413/- of penalty levied at Rs. 2,85,65,300/-. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in holding that amount disclosed Rs. 1,58,68,413/- is undisclosed income as per provisions of section 271AAA. 3. The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and facts in confirming penalty levied under section 271AAA on an amount of Rs. 1,58,68,413/- whereas assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) with regard to fact that" assessee has failed to substantiate the manner in which income was derived, when the assessee has duly declared the same as business income and which is accepted and assessed by the AO. 4. The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and facts in confirming penalty levied under section 271AAA on an amount of Rs. 1,58,68,413/- whereas the same is chargeable @ 10% of the undisclosed income of Rs. 1,25,16,413/-, the surrendered income, which the assessee has failed to substantiate the manner in which in which it was earned. 5. The appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion or amendment in the grounds of General appeal on or before disposal of appeal. 2. The department came in cross appeal before the Hon'ble Bench bearing ITA No. 34....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment of tax together with interest before filing of the return of income. iii. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was correct in relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Gebilal Kanhaiyalal HUF (SC) 252 CTR 345 which is based on different facts as in the present case. The assessee has not paid entire tax, together with interest, in respect of the undisclosed income before filing of the return of income. iv. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was correct in holding that the assesse has complied with the conditions as prescribed in clause (iii) of section 271AAA(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was against the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Gupta v CIT [2006] 287 ITR 376 in which the Hon'ble High Court has held that to claim immunity from levy of penalty in terms of the provisions of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the tax on the surrendered income along with the interest is required to be paid immediately and in any case before the due date of filing of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Rs. 28,56,53,000/-. 6. The assessee filed a detailed submissions before the CIT(A), contending that the assessee had fulfilled all the conditions as per section 271AAA. The CIT(A) held that during the year under consideration, the assessee had disclosed undisclosed income for the Asstt. Year under consideration which was accepted by the Assessing Officer and held that the assessee has failed to substantiate the manner of earning the undisclosed income as per explanation to section 271AAA. The CIT(A) further held following the judgment of Jurisdictional 'Chandigarh Bench' in the case of 'Manohar Infrastructure and Construction Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 729/Chd/2016' that for claiming immunity from penalty u/s 271AAA, since the assessee had not been able to substantiate the manner of earning undisclosed income, penalty u/s 271AAA was held to be leviable to the extent of Rs. 1,58,68,413/- as the assessee had not disclosed the manner of earning the income of Rs. 1,58,68,413/- only as offered on account of any other discrepancy. 7. Thereafter, the assessee made an application u/s 154 before the CIT(A) which has been reproduced in the order of CIT(A) in Appeal No. 60....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Rs. 33,52,000/-, which was made by the AO has since been deleted by the ITAT vide order, dated 30.1.2017 as that amount stood covered in the balance surrendered amount of Rs. 1,58,68,143/-. Thus, only on the amount of Rs. 1,25,16,413/-, the mode and manner of earning the income could be said to be not disclosed. 9. The assessee relied upon the judgement of 'Chandigarh Bench' of the ITAT in the case of Sh. Jarnail Singh Bajwa, one of the group case wherein, under similar facts and circumstances, the penalty u/s 271AAA has been deleted and in that case also, it was argued that the penalty u/s 271AAA was levied since the assessee had not stated the mode and manner of earning the undisclosed income. Further reliance has been placed on the following judgments:- i). Chandigarh Bench of the ITAT in the case of Sh. Jarnail Singh., where under similar facts and circumstances, the penalty had been levied u/s 271AAA, have been deleted. ii). Chandigarh Bench of the ITAT in the case of Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt.Ltd. Vs DCIT, as reported in 48 CCGH 0178, wherein the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court have been followed for deletion of penalty u....