The DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad V. Shanti Builders, Ahmedabad

ITA 3556/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8373 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 18-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources
• Section: 153A; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE, SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 3556/AHD/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD APPELLANT VS. SHANTI BUILDERS, 1125, OLD MADHUPURA MARKET, O/S. DELHI GATE, MADHUPURA, AHMEDABAD. PIN: 380006 RESPONDENT PAN: ABRFS9323E / BY REVENUE : SHRI MUDIT NAGPAL, SR. D.R. / BY ASSESSEE : SHRI BANDISH SOPARKAR, A.R. /DATE OF HEARING : 12.04.2018 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.04.2018 ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS REVENUES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 AR ISES AGAINST THE CIT(A) - 12, AHMEDABADS ORDER DATED 31.08.2015, IN CASE NO. CIT(A)- 12/548A/DCIT/CC-2(2)/2014-15, REVERSING ASSESSING O FFICERS ACTION ITA NO. 3556/AHD/2015 [DCIT VS. SHANTI BUILDERS] A.Y. 2012-13 - 2 - IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS.22,50,000/- IN ORDER DATED 3 0.09.2014, IN PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271AAA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT T HE ACT. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILE PERUSED. 2. WE NOTICE AT THE OUTSET THAT THE CIT(A)S DETAILE D DISCUSSION DELETING THE IMPUGNED PENALTY READS AS UNDER: 7. I HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THE C ONTENTIONS BOTH OF THE AO AND THE AR AND HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL AND CAREF UL CONSIDERATION TO THE CONTENTIONS RAISED AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. THE LD. AO IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT WHEN HE OBSERVES IN THE PENALTY OR DER AT PARA 2 THAT UNIT-WISE RECEIPT OF ON-MONEY HAS NOT BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE A SSESSEE, AND THIS ASPECT IS NOT IN DISPUTE. BUT WHAT THE LD. AR, IN SUBSTANCE, HAS DISPUTED IS WHETHER SUCH REQUIREMENT OF FURNISHING UNIT-WISE RECEIPT OF ON-MONEY AND DISCLOSURE IS TO BE READ IN LAW IN S. 271AAA(2), AFTER RELYING ON VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. I FIND THAT THE LD. AO HAS, THOUGH, INDEED BASED HIS ASSESSMENT EXCLUSIVELY ON THE DISCLOSURE U/S 132(4) COUPLED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED U/S 153A. THE ANSWER TO Q. 4 OF THE ST ATEMENT U/S 132(4) CONTAINED A PRAYER FOR IMMUNITY U/S 271AAA IN CONJU NCTION WITH THE DISCLOSURE BEING MADE. MOREOVER, THE UNDISCLOSED IN COME OF RS. 2.25 CRORES IS IN FACT DESCRIBED IN ANSWER-4 AS 'UNACCOUNTED ON-MO NEY RECEIPT OF M/S SHANTI BUILDERS...ETC', ASSESSEE ALSO OWNED UP THE CORRESP ONDING INCOME IN RETURN U/S 153A AND PAID TAXES THEREON. THESE DEPOSITIONS AND STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE NOT ONLY NOT BEEN REBUTTED BY THE LD. AO BUT IN FACT RELIED UPON BY HIM TO BRING THE RETURNED INCOME TO TAX. THUS, I FIND ON FACTS, THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE UNIT-WISE DETAILS OF RECEIPT OF ON-MONEY, THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE MANNER OF EARNING UNACCOUNTED INCOME, WHICH FROM THE VERY NATURE OF R ECEIPTS DESCRIBED, STANDS BOTH SUBSTANTIATED AND SO ACCEPTED BY THE LD. AO. M OREOVER, IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT EVEN THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER WAS SATISFIED ABOUT THE MANNER OF EARNING UNACCOUNTED INCOME DISCLOSED IN ANSWER TO QUESTION NO. 4 OF THE STATEMENT U/S 132(4) AND THAT NO FURTHER QUESTION WAS PUT TO THE PARTNER, NO ADVERSE VIEW, IN MY OPINION, OUGHT TO OR NEED BE TAKEN. THUS, ON FAC TS, THE ASSESSEE'S CASE FALLS UNDER S. 271AAA(2) AND HENCE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE F OR IMMUNITY UNDER THE SAME. THE LD. AR HAD ALSO DRAWN MY ATTENTION TO VAR IOUS DECISIONS OF LD. ITAT WHEREIN, UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSE SSEE WAS HELD TO BE COVERED BY EXCEPTION CONTAINED IN S. 271AAA AND THE REFORE PENALTY WAS HELD TO BE NOT SUSTAINABLE, AND THEREFORE ALSO THE FINDI NG OF FACT OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE AS ARRIVED AT BY ME STANDS SUPPORTED: 1) PRAMOD KUMAR JAIN V. DCIT 33 TAXMANN.COM 651(CUT TACK) 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND ITA NO. 3556/AHD/2015 [DCIT VS. SHANTI BUILDERS] A.Y. 2012-13 - 3 - CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE INCLINED TO HOLD THAT NO DEFINITION COULD BE GIVEN TO THE 'SPECIFIED MANNER' INSOFAR AS THE VERY STATEMENT ON OATH U/S. 132(4) SPECIFIES TH E MANNER ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS PREPARED TO PAY TAX THEREON. THE INSCRIBING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS TAKEN CARE O F BY THE ASSESSEE WHEN HE FILED THE RETURNS IN PURSUANCE TO NOTICE U/S. 153A ACCOUNTING THE ASSETS. THEREFORE, THE CASE LAW S CITED AT THE BAR CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THE PENALTY IS NOT AU TOMATIC IF ONE OF THE PURPORTED CONDITIONS IS NOT FULFILLED ALTHOU GH ALL THE CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN AGREED TO OF HAVING FULFILLED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER INSOFAR AS THE TAX AND INTEREST H AS BEEN RECOVERED. PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED AFTER THE TAX HA S BEEN RECOVERED THEREFORE ANSWERS THE QUERIES RAISED BY T HE LEARNED FOR THAT THE SAID PROVISIONS BECOME REDUNDANT WAS N OT THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATION. THE MANNER, DURING TH E SEARCH OPERATION, IS NOTED BY THE SEARCH PARTY WHICH THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEDED TO. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE DE CISIONS AS RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE , WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL WAS PLEASED TO CONSIDER CANCELLING THE PEN ALTY SO LEVIED, ARE ALSO APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEES1 CASES BEFORE US INSOFAR AS THERE IS NO PRESCRIBED METHOD TO INDICAT E THE MANNER IN WHICH INCOME WAS GENERATED WHEN THE DEFINITION O F 'UNDISCLOSED INCOME' HAS BEEN DEFINED IN THE ACT IT SELF WHEN NO INCOME OF THE SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YEAR REPRESENTED ' EITHER WHOLLY OR PARTLY' WHICH ONUS LAY UPON THE ASSESSEE STOOD D ISCHARGED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271AAA IN THE INSTANT CASES ARE NOT JUSTIFIED AND AS SUCH, WE CANCEL THE PENALTY SO LEVIED U/S. 271AA A FOR THE AYS UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THE CASE OF RESPECTIVE ASSES SEES. 2) HEADNOTES : [2014] 45 TAXMANN.COM 563 (CHANDIGAR H - TRIB.)ACIT V. MUNISHGOYAL SECTION 271AAA OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - PENALT Y - WHERE SEARCH HAS BEEN INITIATED (APPLICABILITY OF) - ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2010-11 - W HERE ASSESSEE HAVING SURRENDERED CERTAIN INCOME IN COURSE OF SEARCH, FILED RETURN WHEREIN SAID AMOU NT WAS DULY DISCLOSED AND TAXES WERE PAID ACCORDINGLY, THERE WA S SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271AAA(2) AND, THUS, IMPUGNED PENALTY ORDER DESERVED TO BE SET ASIDE - H ELD, YES [PARA 10] [IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE]IT : WHERE ASSESSE E HAVING SURRENDERED CERTAIN INCOME IN COURSE OF SEARCH, FIL ED RETURN WHEREIN SAID AMOUNT WAS DULY DISCLOSED AND TAXES WE RE PAID ACCORDINGLY, THERE WAS SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE OF PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 271AAA(2) AND, THUS, IMPUGNED PENALTY ORDER DESERVED TO BE SET ASIDE.[EMPHASIS SUPPLIED] ITA NO. 3556/AHD/2015 [DCIT VS. SHANTI BUILDERS] A.Y. 2012-13 - 4 - 3) [2014] 48 TAXMANN.COM 327 (DELHI - TRIB.)SITA RAM GUPTA V.ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTR AL CIRCLE-I, FARIDABAD* [HEAD NOTES] SECTION 271AAA OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - PENALT Y - WHERE SEARCH HAS BEEN INITIATED (APPLICABILITY OF) - ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2009-10 - IN COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS CARRIED O UT IN CASE OF ASSESSEE, CASH WAS FOUND AT DIFFERENT PLACES BELONG ING TO HIM - IN STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4), ASSESSE E ADMITTED THAT SAID CASH REPRESENTED UNDISCLOSED INCOME - ASS ESSING OFFICER HAVING COMPLETED ASSESSMENT, PASSED A PENAL TY ORDER UNDER SECTION 271AAA FOR DEFAULT OF NOT SUBSTANTIATING MANNER IN WHICH UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS DERIVED - IT WAS NO TED FROM RECORDS THAT ASSESSEE MADE STATEMENT THAT HE HAD EA RNED UNDISCLOSED INCOME FROM VARIOUS TRANSACTIONS OF SALE/PURCHASE OF LAND AND SAID STATEMENT DID NOT FA CE ANY REBUTTAL OR REJECTION AT HANDS OF ASSESSING OFFICER - IT WAS ALSO UNDISPUTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD PAID DUE TAX ON ADMITT ED UNDISCLOSED INCOME - WHETHER ON FACTS, IMPUGNED PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY AUTHORITIES BELOW DESERVED TO BE SET ASID E - HELD, YES [PARA 21] [EMPHASIS SUPPLIED]. 8. APART FROM THE ABOVE DECISIONS, THE LD. AR HAS A LSO HEAVILY RELIED ON JURISDICTION HC DECISION IN THE CASE OF CJT V. MAHE NDRA C SHAH 299 ITR 305 DRAWING MY ATTENTION TO THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION O F THE HON'BLE HC WITH REFERENCE TO REQUIREMENT OF EXPLANATION 5 TO S. 271 (L)(C) WHICH IS IN PART MATERIA WITH REQUIREMENT OF S. 271AAA(2): INSOFAR AS THE ALLEGED FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE A SSESSEE TO SPECIFY IN THE STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 132(4) REGARDING THE MA NNER IN WHICH SUCH INCOME HAD BEEN DERIVED, WHEN THE STATEMENT WAS BEI NG RECORDED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON HIM T O EXPLAIN THE PROVISION OF THE EXPLANATION 5 IN ITS ENTIRETY TO T HE ASSESSEE CONCERNED AND THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER COULD NOT STOP SHORT AT A PARTICULAR STAGE SO AS TO PERMIT THE REVENUE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SUCH A LAPSE IN THE STATEMENT. THE REASON WAS NOT FAR TO SEEK. IN THE F IRST : INSTANCE, THE STATEMENT WAS BEING RECORDED IN THE QUESTION AND AN SWER FORM AND THERE WOULD BE NO OCCASION FOR AN ASSESSEE TO STATE AND MAKE AVERMENTS IN THE EXACT FORMAT STIPULATED BY THE PRO VISIONS, CONSIDERING THE SETTING IN WHICH SUCH STATEMENT WAS BEING RECOR DED. SECONDLY, CONSIDERING THE SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT, IT IS NOT POSSI BLE TO EXPECT FROM AN ASSESSEE, WHETHER LITERATE OR ILLITERATE, TO BE SPECIFIC AND TO THE POINT REGARDING THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED BY THE EX CEPTION NO. 2 WHILE MAKING STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 132(4)1 THE VI EW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL TO THE EFFECT THAT EVEN IF THE STATEMENT D OES NOT SPECIFY THE MANNER IN WHICH THE INCOME IS DERIVED, IF THE INCOM E IS DECLARED AND TAX THEREON IS PAID, THERE WOULD BE SUBSTANTIAL COM PLIANCE NOT WARRANTING ANY FURTHER DENIAL] OF THE BENEFIT UNDER THE EXCEPTION ITA NO. 3556/AHD/2015 [DCIT VS. SHANTI BUILDERS] A.Y. 2012-13 - 5 - NO. 2 IN THE EXPLANATION 5 WAS COMMENDABLE. [PARA 1 5][ EMPHASIS SUPPLIED ] 9. THE ABOVE VIEW OF THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HC HAS ALS O BEEN REITERATED BY HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HC IN CONNECTION WITH CLAUSE (2) OF EXPLANATION 5 TO S. 271(1)(C) IN CIT V. SIDH NATH GOEL 359 ITR 481: 7. THE ITAT RELIED UPON JUDGMENTS OF MADRAS HIGH CO URT IN CIT V. S.D.V. CHANDRU [20041 266 ITR 175/136 TAXMAN 537 ;AND RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN CIT V. MISHRIMALSONI [2007] 289 ITR 77/162 TAXMAN 53 AND GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CIT V. MAHENDRA C. SHAH [2008] 299 ITR 305/172 TAXMAN 58, WHICH HAVE EXPLAI NED THE EXTENT AND SCOPE OF EXPLANATION 5 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, WHICH DEALS WITH A SITUATION IN WHICH ANY ASSETS ARE FOUND TO B E IN THE OWNERSHIP OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT. CLAUSE (2) OF EXPLANATION 5 MAKES IT CLEAR THAT WHE RE IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH THE ASSESSEE MAKES A STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 132 (4) AND OWNS THAT HE ACQUIRED ANY OF SUCH ASSETS OUT OF HIS UNDI SCLOSED INCOME, NOT SO FAR RETURNED, AND FURTHER STATES THE MANNER IN W HICH SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED AND PAYS TAX TOGETHER WITH INTERES T IF ANY IN RESPECT OF SUCH INCOME, NO PRESUMPTION OF CONCEALMENT HAS TO B E DRAWN, NOTWITHSTANDING THE ADMISSION TO THAT EFFECT. IN OTHER WORDS TO THE EXTENT THE ASSESSEE MAKES A CLEAN OF HIS UNDISCLOSE D INCOME REPRESENTED BY ASSETS FOUND TO BE IN THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE HE IS NOT DEEMED TO HAVE CONCEALED HIS INCOME OR CONCEALE D PARTICULARS THEREOF. THE EXPLANATION IS NOT CONFINED TO PHYSICAL POSSES SION BUT EXTENDS TO OTHER FORMS OF POSSESSION, [EMPHASIS SUP PLIED] 10. THUS, THE JUDICIAL OPINION IS UNAMBIGUOUS TO T HE EFFECT THAT WHAT SECTION 271AAA(2) FUNDAMENTALLY REQUIRES IS THAT TH E ASSESSEE 'MAKES A CLEAN BREAST' U/S 132(4) AND STICKS TO SAME BY FILING RET URN U/S 153A AND PAYING TAXES. THE OTHER REQUIREMENT OF SPECIFICATION AND S UBSTANTIATION OF MANNER OF EARNING IS ONLY TO BE BROADLY, INSISTED UPON. AS OBSERVED BY GUJARAT HC (SUPRA), 'SECONDLY, CONSIDERING THE SOCIAL ENV IRONMENT, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO EXPECT FROM AN ASSESSEE, WHETHER LITERATE OR ILL ITERATE, TO BE SPECIFIC AND TO THE POINT REGARDING THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED BY TH E EXCEPTION NO. 2 WHILE MAKING STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 132(4). THE VIEW TA KEN BY THE TRIBUNAL TO THE EFFECT THAT EVEN IF THE STATEMENT DOES NOT SPECIFY THE MANNER IN WHICH THE INCOME IS DERIVED, IF THE INCOME IS DECLARED AND TAX THEREON IS PAID, THERE WOULD BE SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE NOT WARRANTING A NY FURTHER DENIAL OF THE BENEFIT UNDER THE EXCEPTION NO. 2 IN THE EXPLANATIO N 5 WAS COMMENDABLE.', THE ASSESSEE HAS IN FACT MADE MORE THAN SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VARIOUS JUDGMENTS AS CIT ED AND DISCUSSED ABOVE, I FIND MYSELF IN AGREEMENT WITH THE AVERMENT OF THE L D. AR THAT ON FACTS, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE TO THE REQUIREMENT OF S. 271AAA(2) SO AS TO DESERVE IMMUNITY FROM RIGORS OF PENALTY U/ S 271AAA. SUCH A VIEW IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES HAS BEEN TAKEN BY GUJARAT HC AND OTHER HON'BLE HC AND ITAT BENCHES AS DETAILED ABOVE. ITA NO. 3556/AHD/2015 [DCIT VS. SHANTI BUILDERS] A.Y. 2012-13 - 6 - 11. IN VIEW OF THIS DISCUSSION, I HOLD THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS MADE SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE TO REQUIREMENT OF S. 271AAA(2), SO AS TO DESERVE IMMUNITY. PENALTY LEVIED BY THE LD. AO IS THEREFORE NOT SUSTA INABLE AND REQUIRES TO BE CANCELLED. THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE LD. AO AMOUNTI NG TO RS.22,50,000/- IS THEREFORE CANCELLED AND DELETED. THE ASSESSEE-APPEL LANT GETS AN EQUIVALENT RELIEF. 3. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITS DURIN G THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN DELETING THE IMPUGNED PENALTY ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME D ESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEES SEARCH STATEMENT FAILED TO SATISFY THE F ORMER TWO CONDITIONS OF IMMUNITY OF SPECIFYING THE MANNER OF HAVING DERIVED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN QUESTION FOLLOWED BY ITS SUBSTANTIATION, AS ENVI SAGED U/S.271AAA(2) OF THE ACT. HE THEREFORE SEEKS TO REVIVE THE IMPUGNED PEN ALTY. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE INSTANT ARGUMENT. THERE IS FIRST OF ALL NO MATER IAL IN THE CASE FILE WHICH COULD INDICATE THAT THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER DURING T HE COURSE OF SEARCH IN QUESTION DATED 28.03.2012 HAD APPLIED THAT THE RELE VANT LEGAL CONDITIONS AS PER HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS DECISION IN MAH ENDRA C. SHAHS CASE (SUPRA). IT IS EVIDENT THAT HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS RECENT DECISION IN TAX APPEAL NO.826 OF 2017 PR.CIT VS. M/S. SWAPNA ENTE RPRISE DECIDED ON 22.01.2018 HAS REITERATED THE FOLLOWING LEGAL PRINC IPLES IN SUCH A CASE AS UNDER: 8. THUS, INSOFAR AS SATISFACTION OF CLAUSE (I) AND CLAUSE (II) OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 271AAA OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED, BOTH THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL HAVE RECORDED CON CURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT THAT SHRI KOTADIA, DURING THE COURSE OF RECORDING O F HIS STATEMENT AT THE TIME OF THE SEARCH, HAD STATED THAT THE INCOME WAS EARNE D BY ACCEPTING ON-MONEY IN ITS BUILDING PROJECT. THEREFORE, THE MANNER IN W HICH THE INCOME HAD BEEN DERIVED HAS BEEN CLEARLY SPECIFIED IN THE STATEMENT MADE BY SHRI KOTADIA. INSOFAR AS SUBSTANTIATING THE MANNER IN WHICH THE U NDISCLOSED INCOME WAS DERIVED IS CONCERNED, THE TRIBUNAL HAS RECORDED THA T IT HAD BEEN POINTED OUT THAT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASS ESSEE AS ON-MONEY. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT THAT DURING THE COURS E OF RECORDING OF THE STATEMENT OF SHRI KOTADIA ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS HA D BEEN ASKED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE MANNER IN WHICH THE INCOME WAS DER IVED. THUS, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND THE TRIBUNAL REGARDING SATISFACTION OF CLAUSES (I) AND (II) OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 271AAA OF THE ACT SUFFERS FROM ANY LEGAL IN FIRMITY. ITA NO. 3556/AHD/2015 [DCIT VS. SHANTI BUILDERS] A.Y. 2012-13 - 7 - 4. WE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THEIR LORDSHIPS ABOVE DECI SION TO CONCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEES SEARCH STATEMENT IN QUESTION HAD DULY SA TISFIED THE ABOVE TWO LIMBS ON IMMUNITY (SUPRA) AS RIGHTLY HELD IN THE LOWER AP PELLATE PROCEEDINGS. WE ACCORDINGLY SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE CIT (A)S ORDER DELETING THE IMPUGNED PENALTY. 5. THIS REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. [PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 17 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018.] SD/- SD/- (N. K. BILLAIYA) (S. S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER AHMEDABAD: DATED 17/04/2018 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- / REVENUE 2 / ASSESSEE ! / CONCERNED CIT 4 !- / CIT (A) ()*+ ,--. ./0 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1+2345 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / . // ./0