SH. SWARAN SINGH,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH ‘B’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.181/Chd/2018 (Assessment Year : 2013-14) Sh.Swaran Singh, Vs. The D.C.I.T., H.No.2449-50, Central Circle-1, Near Aroma, Sector 22, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. PAN: ACGPS6676J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by : Shri Nikhil Goyal, CA Respondent by : Shri Surinder Meena, Sr.DR Date of hearing :31.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement :19.06.2018

ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member :

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee

against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax

(Appeals)-3, Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as (‘Ld.CIT

(Appeals)’ dated 4.12.2017, passed u/s 271AAA of the

Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) in Appeal

No.291/CIT(A)(C)/GGN/2015-16 relating to assessment year

2013-14.

confirmation of the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer

u/s 271AAA of the Act. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for

assessee inviting our attention to the quantum assessment

order as well as the penalty order passed u/s 271AAA of the

Act, has submitted that in this case the assessee has not

surrendered any undisclosed income during the search

2 ITA No.181/Chd/2018 AY: 2013-14

action carried out at the premises of the assessee u/s 132

(1) of the Act. Therefore, the penalty could not have been

levied u/s 271AAA of the Act. The assessee stated that the

addition of Rs.10,19,484/- was made in to the income on

two counts, firstly, in respect of jewellery found at the

residential premises and bank lockers amounting to

Rs.9,52,214/- and secondly, relating to cash found at the

residential premises amounting to Rs.67,270/-He has

further submitted that even the quantum additions in

respect of jewellery found amounting to Rs.9,52,214/- have

been deleted by the CIT(Appeals) vide his order dated

5.1.2018. The only addition sustained in this case is

relating to cash found amounting to Rs.67,270/- only.

of the lower authorities.

assessee. In this case, the assessee has not surrendered any

amount during search action. The provisions of section

271AAA of the Act are attracted only in case of surrender of

income during search operation. The addition in this case was

made during the assessment proceedings carried out u/s

143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act and in view of this, penalty, if

any, was attracted that could have been levied u/s 271(1)(c) of

the Act and not u/s 271AAA of the Act. Even the major portion

of the addition relating to jewellery stood deleted. So far as

addition relating to cash of Rs.67,270/- was concerned,

though the assessee could not furnish the exact evidence

3 ITA No.181/Chd/2018 AY: 2013-14

relating to the source of the said amount, therefore, the

disallowance was made in this respect, however, so far as

penalty proceedings are concerned, we are of the view that the

explanation of the assessee that the assessee was an income

tax payee for the last so many years and that during the year

under consideration, the assessee had declared an income

more than Rs.53 lacs, and under the circumstances, the

meagre cash amount of Rs.67,270/- found at the premises of

the assessee can be considered to be reasonably possessed by

the assessee for day to day expenses out of the declared

income of the assessee. This does not seem to be a case of

concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of

income. In view of this, we do not find any justification on the

part of the lower authorities in levying the impugned penalty.

The penalty so levied by the lower authorities is hereby

deleted.

Order pronounced in the open court on 19.06.2018

Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 19th June, 2018 *Rati* Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. The CIT 5. The DR Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Chandigarh

4 ITA No.181/Chd/2018 AY: 2013-14