Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Brij Bhushan Singal , New Delhi vs Department Of Income Tax on 17 February, 2015
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH "A": NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGARWAL, VICE PRESIDENT
AND
SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA Nos. 2578, 2571, 2570/Del/2013
Assessment Years: 2004-05, 05-06 & 07-08
DCIT, vs. Brij Bhushan Singal,
Central Circle-13, W-29, Greater Kailash,
New Delhi. Part-II, New Delhi.
AEFPS6298M
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Cross Objection Nos. 187/Del/2013, 183/Del/2013 &182/Del/2013
(In ITA Nos. 2578, 2571 & 2570/D/2013)
Brij Bhushan Singal, vs. DCIT,
W-29, Greater Kailash, Cent. Circle 13,
Part-II, New Delhi. New Delhi.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA No. 2575/Del/2013
Assessment Year: 2007-08
DCIT, vs. Brij Bhushan Singal HUF,
Circle 13, New Delhi. Plot No. 3, Industrial Area,
Phase-I, Chandigarh-160002
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Cross Objection No. 185/Del/2013
(In ITA No. 2575/D/2013)
Brij Bhushan Singal HUF, vs. DCIT,
Plot No. 3, Industrial Area, Circle 13, New Delhi.
Phase-1, Chandigarh.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA No. 2481/Del/2013
Assessment Year: 2004-05
Uma Singal, vs. DCIT,
W-29, Greater Kailash, Cent. Circle 13,
Part-II, New Delhi. New Delhi.
ANRPS7987A
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Page 2 of 18
ITA Nos. 2577, 2568 & 5253/D/2013
Assessment Years: 2004-05, 05-06 & 2010-11
DCIT, vs. Uma Singal,
Central Circle-13, W-29, Greater Kailash,
New Delhi. Part-II,
New Delhi.
ANRPS7987A
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Cross Objection No. 181/D/2013
(In ITA No. 2568/Del/2013)
Assessment Year: 2005-06
Uma Singal, vs. DCIT,
W-29, Greater Kailash, Cent. Circle 13,
Part-II, New Delhi. New Delhi.
ANRPS7987A
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA No. 2572/Del/2013
Assessment Year: 2007-08
DCIT, vs. Ritu Singal,
Central Circle-13, New Delhi. W-29, Greater Kailash,
New Delhi.
ABHPS3711N
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Cross Objection No. 184/D/2013
(In ITA No. 2572/D/2013)
Ritu Singal, vs. DCIT,
W-29, Greater Kailash, Cent. Circle 13,
New Delhi. New Delhi.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA No. 2576 & 2602/Del/2013
Assessment Year: 2004-05 & 05-06
DCIT, vs. Neeraj Singhal,
Central Circle-13, W-29, Greater Kailash,
New Delhi. Part-II, New Delhi.
ANRPS7986B
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Cross Objection Nos. 186/D/2013 & 188/D/2013
(In ITA Nos. 2576 & 2602/D/2013)
Neeraj Singal, vs. DCIT,
W-29, Greater Kailash, Cent. Circle, 13,
Page 3 of 18
Part-II, New Delhi. New Delhi.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Smt. Anuradha Misra, CIT(DR)
Respondent by : Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CA
ORDER
PER BENCH These are 18 appeals, 10 of the Revenue and 8 CO of the assessee. At the outset both the parties agreed that the issues involved in the aforesaid appeals are common and therefore, were heard together and are disposed of by this consolidated order.
2. During the course of hearing both the parties agreed that the disposal of appeal in the case of Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal will take care of the issues involved in other appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) dated 11/02/2013 except ground no. 2, raised in the case of Ms. Uma Singhal, in ITA No.2481/Del/2013 for A.Y. 2004-05. With this preliminary backdrop we take up the appeal & CO filed by the assessee in the case of Brij Bhushan Singal for A.Y. 2004-05. The grounds of appeal of the revenue is for A.Y. 2004-05 is as follows:
1. "The order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) is not correct in law and facts;
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 42,18,037/- made by the AO on account of unexplained credits received by the assessee as accommodation entry from Sh. S.K. Gupta.Page 4 of 18
3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend any/all the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal."
And in the CO preferred by the assessee, the following grounds have been preferred:
1. "That the order dated 11.02.2013 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, New Delhi is against law and facts on the file inasmuch as he was not justified in rejecting the stand of the assessee that the order passed by the ld. AO is without jurisdiction and bad in law as the jurisdiction u/s 153A has been vitiated.
2. That the order dated 11.02.2013 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, New Delhi, is against law and facts on the file inasmuch as he was not justified in rejecting the stand of the assessee that the principles of natural justice have not been followed inasmuch the statement on which entire premise of the Department is based was recorded on the back of the assessee and even a copy of the same was not furnished to the assessee."
3. The solitary ground that has been raised by the revenue is that the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 42,18,037/- made by the AO on account of unexplained credits received by the assessee as accommodation entries from Sh. S.K. Gupta.
4. Brief facts of the case are that search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'the Act') was carried out on Bhushan Group on 03/03/2010. Since assessee was also covered in the operation u/s 132 of the Act, Section 153A proceedings were initiated against the assessee and notices were issued on 24/09/2010. In response to the same the assessee filed his return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 1,72,686/- on 21/10/2010. The AO vide questionnaire dated 12/07/2011 asked the assessee Page 5 of 18 to reply in respect to his name cropping up in certain documents found during a survey conducted on 20/11/2007 at the premises of Sh. S.K. Gupta, C.A. From the impounded documents/ lap top/ computer, during the said survey at shri S.K. Gupta, survey team found the ledger account maintained by him for the period from 2003-04 to 2007-08 and the name of the assessee figured in it. The said survey against Sh. S.K. Gupta finally ended in the Income Tax Settlement Commission, wherein the said Sh. S.K. Gupta has admitted that he is an entry provider and controls 38 companies which are incorporated for providing accommodation entry to various persons. The AO, then brought to the notice of the assessee the following transaction recorded in the ledger account maintained by Shri S.K.Gupta, which according to the AO were nothing but accommodation entries since the name of the assessee figured in it and that of their mediator being Sh. R.K. Kedia was forwarded to the assessee for his comments and explanations:
S.No. Name of the Name of the Date Amount Details
entry providing person
company accepting the
amount
1. Sino Securities Sh. B.B. Singhal 21.05.04 8,00,000/- Ch. No. 431989
P. Ltd. dt. 21.05.04
2. As above As above 21.05.04 5,00,000/- Ch. No. 431990
dt. 16.05.04
3. As above As above 21.05.04 5,00,000/- Ch. No. 431997
dt. 17.05.04
4. As above As above 31.05.04 8,00,000/- Ch. No. 433714
dt. 25.05.04
5. As above As above 05.08.03 5,00,000/- Ch. No. 436601
dt. 01.08.03
6. As above As above 05.08.03 5,00,000/- Ch. No. 436602
dt. 01.08.03
7. As above As above 29.11.04 2,77,795/- Ch. NO.
238678 dt.
27.11.04
8. As above As above 13.07.06 25,00,000/- Ch. No. 307075
dt. 10.07.06
9. As above As above 13.07.06 25,00,000/- Ch. No. 307074
dt. 10.07.06
10. As above As above 26.07.06 6,24,235/- Ch. No. 009314
dt. 14.09.06
Page 6 of 18
5. To the said query the assessee replied vide letter dated 27/10/2011 that the payments mentioned except that of serial no. 7 has been received from M/s Sino Securities Pvt. Ltd. and the entry at serial no. 7 does not pertain to the assessee. Along with the said reply, the assessee forwarded the confirmation and bill in respect of the transaction entered between him and M/s Sino Securities Pvt. Ltd. (sharebroker) and the payments received were duly enclosed for the perusal of the AO. However, dissatisfied with the reply of the assessee, the AO proceeded to add the aforesaid amount as unexplained money of the assessee earned from unexplained sources and added the said amount of Rs. 42,18,037/- to the total income of the assessee.
6. Aggrieved by the said order of the AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) who was pleased to delete the said addition by holding as under:
"I have considered the rival submissions. The fact that Sh. S.K. Gupta is an entry operator is undisputed. The fact that the appellant/other persons of Bhushan group had transactions with companies controlled by Sh. S.K. Gupta is undisputed. In Kishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT, Bombay City II (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC), Hon'ble Apex Court held that "It is true that the proceedings under the income-tax law, are not governed by the strict rules of evidence and therefore, it might be said that even without calling the manager of the bank in evidence to prove this letter, it could be taken into account as evidence. But before the I.T. authorities could reply upon it, they were bound to produce it before the appellant so that the appellant could controvert the statements contained in it by asking for an opportunity to cross examine the manager of the bank with reference the statements made by him."Page 7 of 18
Therefore, as it is equally well settled that the principles of natural justice are applicable to tax proceedings, the statement relied upon as well as opportunity to cross examine the person making the statement ought to have been made available to the appellant. Absence of the opportunity to the appellant during the assessment proceedings, and not seizing the opportunity to remove the defect when provided during the appeal proceedings, vitiates the assessment. Further, while the finding of the ITSC that Sh. S.K. Gupta is an entry operator is final qua the persons/entities alleged to have taken entries from that person. That finding needs to be examined and corroborated in the facts of each case. The real facts could have emerged had the cross examination been got conducted by the revenue. That has not happened. In this view of the matter, I hold that the case of unexplained cash credit has not yet been established against the appellant. This ground of appeal succeeds. Appellant gets relief of Rs. 42,18,037/-.
I find that while the amount of Rs. 42,18,037/- was brought to tax as unexplained credit/income, the capital gain arising from the sale of shares does not find any mention in the assessment order. As the two sets of transactions, i.e. unexplained credit/income charged by the revenue and capital gain offered by the appellant, arise from the same transaction, only one of these amounts can be taxed. As the appeal herein against addition of Rs. 42,18,037/- as unexplained credit/income has been allowed, the corresponding capital gain shall be charged if not charged already in the returned income of the appellant. Further, the applicable rate at which the capital gain is to be charged shall be re-verified in view of the dispute relating to capital gain on unlisted securities and the rate applicable (i.e. 10% offered by the appellant and 20% charged by revenue). I may mention here that the securities in question were listed on the Calcutta Stock Exchange Ltd., though these may not be very well known listed companies. The AO is directed to check Page 8 of 18 these aspects at the time of giving effect to this order, and act in terms of the directions given above in accordance with the law."
7. According to the ld. CITDR, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of the unexplained credits received by the assessee being accommodation entry provided by Sh. S.K. Gupta. According to the ld. DR, once search u/s 132 of the Act take place at the premises of the assessee, sec. 153A of the Act gets triggered and the assessment for the previous six assessment years need to be assessed/reassessed by the AO. According to the ld.DR, the mandate of sec. 153A of the Act is that the AO has to compute the total income of the assessee for the previous six assessment years. In this case also the AO has rightly taken into account the accommodation entries provided by Sh. S.K. Gupta, CA to the assessee which was exposed during the survey conducted at his premises on 20/11/2007. The said Sh. S.K. Gupta has admitted on oath before the survey team that he was indulging in providing accommodation entries to various persons and the ledger account maintained by the said Sh. S.K. Gupta clearly reflects the money dealing with the assessee. The modus operandi for providing the accommodation entry has been explained in detail by Sh. S.K. Gupta and from the back up folders of his laptop the details like cash received, cheque issued, commission/premium paid in respect of the party were found emerging from the ledger account maintained in the name of the conduit of the assessee; and the ld. CIT(DR) pointed out that in the case of the present assessee who belongs to the Bhushan Group one Sh. Raj Kumar Kedia was the conduit and his house was also searched along Page 9 of 18 with that of the assessee. And the ld. CIT(DR) pointed out to a chart, which is found in page 3 of the assessment order wherein the details of accommodation entries supposed to have been made to members of the Bhushan Group have been given, which is reproduced below:
Name Financial Year Amount Sh. B.B. Singal 2003-04 Rs. 12,15,937/- Do 2004-05 Rs. 28,77,795/- Do 2006-07 Rs. 56,24,235/- Sh. Neeraj Singal 2003-04 Rs.1,28,75,500/- Do 2004-05 Rs. 49,35,410/- Smt. Uma Singal 2003-04 Rs. 38,49,305/- Do 2004-05 Rs. 45,07,742/- Smt. Ritu Singal 2006-07 Rs. 77,38,947/- B.B. Singal HUF 2006-07 Rs. 13,00,000/-
8. Ld. DR also has pointed out that Sh. S.K. Gupta in his statement recorded on oath on 05/01/2009 has categorically admitted that transactions mentioned in the above accounts were in respect of Bhushan Group of cases and were not genuine and were only accommodation entries. The ld. DR also pointed out the fact that Sh. S.K. Gupta has admitted before the Income Tax Settlement Commission the entire modus operandi in providing accommodation entries to various entities including the assessee. Therefore, according to the ld. DR the AO rightly made the addition while computing the total income of the assessee as mandated by section 153A of the Act.
9. On the other hand, ld. AR Sh. Ashwini Kumar, C.A, submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that there was no evidence other than the statement of Sh. S.K. Gupta, that too which has been taken behind the back of the assessee; and further submitted that neither the copy of the said statement of Gupta which the AO has relied upon to make the impugned Page 10 of 18 addition has been provided to the assessee for rebutting the same nor his request to cross examine shri. S.K. Gupta was heeded to by the AO . So the ld. CIT(A) has found merit in the ground raised by the assessee. Further according to the ld. AR, the ld. CIT(A) has examined the records/documents filed by the assessee before the AO, which included the contract notes, copies of the bills in respect to the purchase of shares made through M/s Sino Securities Pvt. Ltd. and confirmation from M/s Sino Securities; and the ld CIT(A) was satisfied that all the payments have been received by the assessee either through account payee cheques or through demand draft, which stood duly credited in the bank account and recorded in the regular books of accounts of the assessee; so according to ld. AR, the CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition made by the AO.
10. We have heard both the parties and have gone through the records of the cases cited before us. We find that a search u/s 132 of the Act was carried out at the business premisses of the assessee on 03/03/2010 being part of the Bhsushan Group. Pursuant to the search notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued against the assessee and the assessee filed a return of income declaring an income of Rs. 1,72,686/- was filed on 21/10/2010. Later we find that the AO issued a questionnaire dated 12/07/2011, wherein the assessee was asked to reply about his name being found in the ledger account maintained by Sh. S.K. Gupta whose premises were surveyed by the department and to his alleged admission wherein he has revealed that he was in the business of providing accommodation entries for so many Page 11 of 18 peresons/entities including the assessee. Armed with the said disclosure of Sh. S.K. Gupta and the ledger account maintained by Sh. S.K. Gupta the AO sought the reply of the assessee, and he was also asked whether he would like to cross examine the said Sh. S.K. Gupta. We find that the assessee had infact replied to the AO vide letter dated 27/10/2011wherein the assessee admitted all the transactions as except the transaction mentioned at serial no. 7 with the said share broker M/s Sino Securities Pvt. Ltd. The assessee informed the AO about his inability to produce the share broker since 5-6 years have lapsed and the assessee is not in touch or doing any business with the said share broker. We also take note of the fact that the assessee in the said reply also requested the AO to exercise his statutory powers vested with him to summon Shri. S.K. Gupta before him (AO) and give an opportunity to the assessee to cross examine the said Shri. S.K. Gupta. We also find that the assessee made a request to the AO to provide him with the statements of Shri. Gupta which has been the basis for asking the queries. However, we find that in the assessment order, the AO has given a finding that assessee has not even availed the opportunity given to him vide question no. 7 of questionnaire dated 12/07/2011 to cross examine Sh. S.K. Gupta. We find that the AO's said finding is contrary to the evidence/request made by the assessee to provide him an opportunity to cross examine vide his letter dated 27/10/2011 to AO. In the remand report also, the AO could not say anything about the said request made by the assessee before the AO. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s finding that the statement of Sh. S.K. Gupta incriminating the assessee was not provided to him nor an opportunity was granted to cross Page 12 of 18 examine the said Sh. Gupta is against natural justice and, therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in coming to a conclusion that the said evidence even if incriminating the assessee, could not have been the basis for making the impugned additions. We also take note of the fact that the ld. CIT(A) had made a finding that the shares which were purchased and sold by the assessee through the said share broker was listed companies of Calcutta Stock Exchange though not well known companies. We also take note of the fact that the assessee had duly reflected in its return filed in the concerned assessment years the long term/short term capital gain it received from sale of shares through the Sino Securities Pvt. Ltd. We find that in the assessment order, there is no whisper about any incriminating material which was found during search on 03/03/2010 conducted at the residence of the assessee and other business premises of the Bhushan Group. The edifice on which the AO, has built the entire addition u/s 68 of the Act, is on the purported statement of Shri S.K. Gupta which the survey team has obtained in the year 2007 and the ledger account which was maintained by the said S.K. Gupta. We find that for the first time the assessee was put on notice by the AO, in respect to the said fact of his knowledge about the assessee's name figuring in the survey statement of said S.K. Gupta and ledger documents of S.K. Gupta was on 12/07/2011 and it is not disputed by the Revenue that neither the copy of the said statement of S.K. Gupta which purportedly put the assessee on the dock was given to the assessee, to rebut the allegation if any nor the request of the assessee to cross examine Shri S.K. Gupta was acceded to by the AO. Rather we find that, the AO has made a Page 13 of 18 finding that assessee did not avail the opportunity to cross examine Shri S.K. Gupta which is factually incorrect. Evidence which are on record clearly shows that assessee had infact requested the AO, to exercise his statutory powers to summon Shri S.K. Gupta and to allow him to be tested on the anvil of cross examination. The AO was not justified to make a finding that the assessee did not avail the opportunity to cross examine Shri S.K. Gupta, when the fact of the matter was otherwise. The ld. CIT(A) has rightly found that the addition u/s 68 of the Act computed by the AO was only on the purported statement of the Shri S.K. Gupta, which has not be provided to the assessee, inspite of his request to provide him with a copy of the said statement; and despite the assessee requesting the AO to summon Shri S.K. Gupta for cross- examine the AO did not heeded to it, so the addition cannot be sustained on the said statement relied on by the AO. It was also pointed out by the ld counsel that during the year under consideration the credit is only on account of realization of the assets of the assessee i.e. the shares which were sold by the assessee and the cash was realized. The purchase of the shares have not been doubted by the revenue and, therefore, realization of the said assets cannot be said to be the accommodation entry availed by the assessee. It is only the replacement of the one asset with another asset i.e. the shares were liquidated and cash was realized. The capital gain/capital loss which arose out of such transactions was duly disclosed in the return of income. We find force in the arguments of the ld counsel. The realization of the shares into cash cannot be said to be availing of the accommodation entry especially when the purchase of those shares have not been doubted Page 14 of 18 by the revenue. Further the purchase and sale of the share are duly supported by the documentary evidence and the purchase consideration paid by the assessee by cheque as well as sale consideration was received by the cheque. The AO has not found any of these documents to be fake. The only reason for treating the transactions of sale of shares as accommodation entry is the purported statement of Shri S.K. Gupta, which survey team obtained in the year 2007. Admittedly such statement was record behind the back of the assessee and the assessee was never allowed any opportunity to cross-examine him. Moreover from the statement of Shri S.K. Gupta the ld CIT DR could not point out any mention of the assessee's name in any of the statement recorded during the said survey or later on. In view of the above we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the ld CIT(A) and we uphold the same. The revenue's appeal in assessment year 2004-05 is thus dismissed.
11. Further as regards the CO, the same being not pressed is dismissed. Since the issues involved and as agreed between the parties, 1 are identical in appeal for A.Y. 2004-05 with the remaining 9 appeal of the revenue & 7 CO's stand dismissed except ground no. 2 in the case of Uma Singal for A.Y. 2004-05 which reads as under:
2. "That the order dated 11.02.2013 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), New Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as muich as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Learned Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-13, New Delhi in making an addition of Rs.
6,76,673/- on account of FDR receipt on the ground that Appellant could not produce any document in support of such FDR receipt." Page 15 of 18
12. The ld. AR contended that the AO and the CIT(Appeals) erred in making an addition of Rs. 6,76,673/-. Since the appellant could not produce any document in support of such FDR receipt that Smt. Uma Singal is an individual and is not carrying out any business/profession but only deriving income from interest, capital gains, dividend, etc. and is neither statutorily obliged to nor maintaining any regular books of accounts. And it was submitted by the ld. AR that the appellant had, at various points of time, prior to 01.04.2003 out of her own savings or surplus funds available in bank accounts purchased FDRs in various banks which were either matured/renewed subsequently during the Financial Year 2004-05 onwards. However, by mistake, the said FDRs were omitted to be included in the statement of Affairs prepared as on 31.03.2003. Subsequently, when the error was noted, it was realized that certain FDRs purchased prior to 01.04.2003 had been matured/renewed subsequently, the imputed value thereof taking into account the rate of interest and making a reverse calculation was credited to the capital account with a corresponding debt to the FDRs account as on 01.04.2003 since the original FDRs were purchased in that period. The ld. AR tried to impress upon us that because of the passage of time and the consequential non-availability compounded with the chances of certain records having been misplaced/defaced/destroyed, subsequently when the bank accounts were analyzed for the purpose of filing details during the course of post-search assessment proceedings that the error was discovered and the corresponding rectification entries passed. As such, therefore, the AR contended that as such it cannot be said that the said Page 16 of 18 FDRs were in the nature of unexplained credit, specially considering the fact that the same pertain to the period prior to 01.04.2003 and it was only because of the compilation of the error that the same could not be incorporated in the statement of affairs as on 31.03.2003.
13. We have heard both the parties and have perused the records and we find that the assessee during the section 153 proceedings before the AO could not produce any documents to substantiate the receipts on account of FDR receipts of Rs. 6,76,673/- in her capital account. The AO's finding that no such credit is appearing in the bank account statement provided by the assessee and since assessee could not produce any documents substantiate the same. The AO added the said amount to the total income of the assessee as unexplained credit. Before the CIT(Appeals) also the assessee had made all the contentions which has been raised before the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) has not accepted the contentions raised by the assessee since the assessee could not offer any evidence to support the explanation that was given before him. Before us also the ld. AR could not produce any documents to substantiate his explanation regarding this aspect, so that we could take a different view on the issue. Therefore, we are inclined to confirm the order of the CIT(Appeals) in this behalf and, therefore, the appeal preferred by the appellant on this issue stands dismissed.
Page 17 of 18
14. ITA No. 5253/D/2013 for A.Y. 2010-11 This is an appeal of the Revenue preferred by Uma Singal against the order of the CIT(Appeals)-1, New Delhi dated 05/07/2013 deleting the penalty imposed on the assessee. The grounds of appeal are as follows:
"On the facts and circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty imposed by AO u/s 271AAA of the I.T. Act amounting to Rs. 50,00,000/- on the surrender of Rs. 5 crores, as the assessee had not substantiated the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived with any corroborative evidence."
In respect of the deletion of the penalty imposed on the assessee, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has relied on the order of this Tribunal in the case of Sh. Neeraj Singal for A.Y. 2010-11, wherein the Tribunal has deleted the penalty imposed u/s 271AAA of the Act. In the impugned order dated 05/07/2013 in Neeraj Singal's case, whose case also is before us which has been adjudicated above, wherein the penalty on similar facts was deleted by this Tribunal by observing as under:
"In view of above facts of the present case wherefrom it is evident that during the course of search proceedings the authorized officer of the department had not raised any specific query regarding the manner in which the undisclosed income has been derived and on the contrary the assessee has tried to explain the earning of the undisclosed income in question in its reply during the course of recording of his statement u/s 132(4) of the Act and thereafter. We thus, respectfully following the ratio of above cited decisions of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court hold that in absence of query raised by the authorized officer during the course of recording of statement u/s 132(4) about the manner in which the undisclosed income has been derived and about its Page 18 of 18 substantiation, the AO was not justified in imposing penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act specially when the offered undisclosed income has been accepted and due tax thereon has been paid by the assessee."
15. The ld. DR could not point out any fact which could persuade us to take a different view. Since the penalty was imposed on an assessee who was also searched along with the appellant Smt. Uma Singal and whose penalty was also levied on the similar grounds has now been deleted by this Tribunal on the reasons afore-stated. Respectfully concurring with the view of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal and, therefore, we uphold the order of the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the revenue's appeal against deletion of the penalty is imposed.
16. In the result, all the appeals/cross objections are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 17.02.2015
-Sd/- -Sd/-
(G.D. AGARWAL ) (A. T. VARKEY)
VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated:17.02.2015
*Kavita
Copy forwarded to
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT (A)
5. DR:ITAT
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
ITAT, New Delhi