Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that t both the CIT (A)) as well as the Tribunal had recorded concurrent findings of fact that during the course of search the director of the assessee-company had admitted undisclosed income of Rs. 15 crores as unaccounted cash receivable, for the year under consideration, i.e., financial year 2010-11. The director of the assessee in his statement, had explained that the income was earned out of booking/selling shops and had specified the buildings. Thereafter the assessee could not be blamed for not substantiating the manner in which the disclosed income was derived. The cancellation of penalty by the Tribunal was justified. (R/TA No. 174 & 540 of 2019 dt 17 -09 2019) (AY. 2011-12)
CIT v. Patdi Commercial and Investment Ltd. (2020) 420 ITR 308 / 187 DTR 35 (Guj) (HC)
S. 271AAA : Penalty – Search initiated on or after 1st June, 2007 – Undisclosed income and specifies manner in which such income derived- Failure of the raiding party to elicit a response from assessee regarding manner of deriving income- Deletion of penalty by the Tribunal is held to be valid . [ S.132 (4) , 271AAA(2) ]