M/s Deepak Builders, Ludhiana V. DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana

ITA 937/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4519 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 30-05-2019
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 04-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIV SWAROOP SINGH SR DR
• Keywords: Business income; Search and seizure; Document seized; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Difference of opinion; Documents seized
• Section: 142(1); 153A; 132

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BEN CH A, CHANDIGARH , . '.., # $, %& BEFORE: SH. SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. B.R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 934/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2014-15 SH. DEEPAK KUMAR SINGAL PROP. DEEPAL BUILDCON INFRASTRUCTURE, NEAR LODHI CLUB LUDHIANA DCIT CC-1 LUDHIANA PUNJAB ./ PAN NO: AIZPS1486R / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ./ ITA NO. 937/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2014-15 M/S DEEPAK BUILDERS 120 FT. ROAD, NEAR LODHI CLUB SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR LUDHIANA DCIT CC-1 LUDHIANA PUNJAB ./ PAN NO: AIZPS1486R / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ./ ITA NO. 938/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2014-15 SH. KAMAL KUMAR SINGAL THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. DEEPAK K. SINGAL 712-B, AGGAR NAGAR, LUDHIANA PUNJAB DCIT CC-1 LUDHIANA PUNJAB ./ PAN NO: ADVPS6954P / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ! ' / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. SUDHIR SEHGAL, ADVOCATE # ! ' / REVENUE BY : SH. SHIV SWAROOP SINGH, SR. DR $ % ! &/ DATE OF HEARING : 30/05/2019 '()* ! &/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31/05/2019 %'/ ORDER PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, A.M: ALL THE ABOVE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-5, LUDHIANA EACH DT. 2 0/04/2018. 2. APPEAL WISE GROUNDS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 2 GROUNDS OF ITA NO. 934/CHD/2018: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LEV Y OF PENALTY U/S 271AAB R.W.S 274 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AMOUNTING TO RS. 15,00,000/-. 2. THAT THE CONFIRMATION OF PENALTY IS AGAINST THE FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD OR DISPOSED OFF. GROUNDS OF ITA NO. 937/CHD/2018: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LEV Y OF PENALTY U/S 271AAB R.W.S 274 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,40,20,000/-. 2. THAT THE CONFIRMATION OF PENALTY IS AGAINST THE FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD OR DISPOSED OFF. GROUNDS OF ITA NO. 938/CHD/2018: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LEV Y OF PENALTY U/S 271AAB R.W.S 274 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,50,000/-. 2. THAT THE CONFIRMATION OF PENALTY IS AGAINST THE FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD OR DISPOSED OFF. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH WAS CO NDUCTED U/SEC 132(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON 20.03.2014 AT THE PREMI SES OF THE CONCERN. THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP CONCERN AND IS A CIVIL CO NTRACTOR. THE NOTICE DATED 23.01.2015 U/SEC 142(1) R.W.S 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED AND DULY SERVED. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 28.11.2014BY DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 11,84,55,440/-. IT IS WORTH TO MENTION HERE THAT TH E RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED SUOMOTO BY THE ASSESSEE U/SEC 139(1) WITHIN THE TIM E. THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY DISCLOSED THE SURRENDER AMOUNT OF RS. 14.02,00,000/ - IN THE SAID RETURN. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE SURRENDER LETTER WHICH IS DU LY FORMING PART OF THE PENALTY ORDER. THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE W AS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 30.03.2016 AT THE INCOME OF RS. 11,88,87,430/-, WHE REIN THE ONLY ADDITION WHICH WAS MADE WAS ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF L/10 TH OF VEHICLE EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL USE.THUS, THE SURRENDER AMOUNT AS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS ACCEPTED AS SU CH BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF PASSING THE AS SESSMENT ORDER HAS DULY ACCEPTED THE SURRENDER AS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS T HERE WAS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/SEC 271AAB OF THE ACT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY MERELY STATING AS UNDER: 3 'THUS, THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 14,02,00,000/- DISCLOSED U/SEC 132(4) OF THE ACT IS LIABLE FOR PENAL ACTION WITHIN THE MEANINGS OF SECTION 271AAB OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/SEC 271AAB H AS BEEN INITIATED'. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS VERY MUCH CLEAR THAT THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAS NOT RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION AT THE TIME OF INITIATING THE PENA LTY PROCEEDINGS U/SEC 271AAB OF THE ACT AS TO HOW THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271AAB OF THE ACT ARE APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THUS, WITHOUT SATISFAC TION BEING RECORDED, THERE CO'JLD BE NO INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. THE REAFTER PENALTY ORDER U/SEC 271AAB OF THE ACT WAS PASSED VIDE ORDER DATED 30.09 .2016. APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE CITA) AGAINST THE ABOVE SAID ORDER PASSE D U/SEC 271AAB OF THE ACT WHICH WAS DULY DISMISSED VIDE ORDER DATED 20.04.201 8 BY ONLY OBSERVING THAT THE LEVY OF PENALTY IS MANDATORY. 4. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ABOVE SAID ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 5. DURING THE HEARING BEFORE US, IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THE SIMILAR MATTER HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENU E BY THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 935/CHD/2018 AND 936/CHD/2018 I N THE CASE OF VISHAL SINGHAL AND SUNITA SINGHAL RESPECTIVELY. FOR THE SAKE OF R EADY REFERENCE THE SAID ORDER IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: THE PRESENT APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY DIFFERENT A SSESSEES AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-5, LUDHIANA (IN SHORT CIT(A) BOTH DATED 20.4.2018 CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271 AAB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT). 2. IT WAS COMMON GROUND THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN BOTH THE APPEALS WAS IDENTICAL, RELATING TO LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271AAB OF THE ACT, SUBSEQUENT TO ASSESS MENT FRAMED IN CONSEQUENCE TO SEARCH CARRIED OUT ON DEEP AK SINGAL GROUP OF CASES, WHICH INCLUDED BOTH THE ASSE SSES AND IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE FACTS LEADING TO THE LEVY OF PENALTY IN BOTH THE CASES WERE IDENTICAL. THEREF ORE, BOTH THE APPEALS WERE TAKEN UP TOGETHER AND ARE BEI NG DEALT WITH BY WAY OF THIS COMMON CONSOLIDATED ORDE R. WE SHALL FIRST BE DEALING WITH THE FACTS IN THE CA SE OF VISHAL SINGAL VS. DCIT IN ITA NO.935/CHD/2018. ITA NO.935/CHD/2018(VISHAL SINGAL): 3. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE CASE ARE THAT A SEAR CH U/S 132(1) OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 20.3.2014. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THEREAFTER , IT WAS FOUND THAT AT THE TIME OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS TH E ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED UNDISCLOSED INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.10 LACS IN THE STATEMENT MADE U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271AAB OF THE ACT WERE THER EFORE INITIATED AND SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 274 R.W.S.271AA B OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE, TH E ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DISCLOSING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.9,78,250/-, WHICH INC LUDED SURRENDERED INCOME AND WHICH HAD BEEN ACCEPTED AS 4 SUCH. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBSTANTIATED THE MANNER IN WHICH THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME HAD BEEN EARNED AND HAD ALSO PAID TAXES ON T HE SAME. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NO VALUABLE ITE MS HAD BEEN FOUND DURING SEARCH. IT WAS THUS CONTENDED THA T PENALTY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BE THEREFORE DROPPE D. THE ASSESSING OFFICER(A.O) DID NOT FIND THE REPLY O F THE ASSESSEE TENABLE. HE REPRODUCED THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 271AAB OF THE ACT AND ALSO THE SURRENDER LETTER GI VING THE AMOUNT AND BASIS OF SURRENDER OF ADDITIONAL INC OME DURING SEARCH. REFERRING TO THE SAME, THE A.O. STAT ED THAT IT WAS CLEAR FROM THE SAME THAT THE SURRENDER WAS M ADE TO COVER THE DISCREPANCY FOUND IN THE SEIZED DOCUME NTS DURING SEARCH AND TO COVER ANY KIND OF DISCREPANCY IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ALSO INCOME YET TO BE RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HE, THEREFORE, HE LD THAT THE ASSESSEES CASE CLEARLY FELL UNDER THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 271AAB(1)(A) OF THE ACT AND THUS LEVIED THE PENALTY ACCORDINGLY ON THE SURRENDERED INCOME @ 10% THEREOF, WHICH AMOUNTED TO RS.1 LAC. 4. THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), W HO UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE A.O. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US, RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271AAB R.W.S. 27 4 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 196,1 AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,00,000/- 2. THAT THE CONFIRMATION OF PENALTY IS AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD OR DISPOSED OFF. 6. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE REITERATED THE CONTENTIONS MAD E BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR A SSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS NO UNDISCLOSED INCOME, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 271AAB OF THE ACT AND, THEREF ORE, NO PENALTY COULD BE LEVIED. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESS EE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE DEFINITION OF THE UNDISCL OSED INCOME IN EXPLANATION TO SECTION 271AAB OF THE ACT AS UNDER: 271AAB:- EXPLANATION.FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, (A) XXXX (B) XXXX (I) XXXX (II) XXXX (C) 'UNDISCLOSED INCOME' MEANS (I) ANY INCOME OF THE SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YEAR REPRESENTED, EITHER WHOLLY OR PARTLY, BY ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THI NG OR ANY ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR TRANSACTIONS FOUND IN THE COURSE OF A SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132, WHICH HAS 5 (A) NOT BEEN RECORDED ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF SEAR CH IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS MAINTAINED IN THE NORMAL COURSE RELATING TO SUCH PREVIOUS YEAR; O R (B) OTHERWISE NOT BEEN DISCLOSED TO THE [PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR] CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR [PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR] COMMISSIONER BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH; OR (II) ANY INCOME OF THE SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YEAR REPRESENTED, EITHER WHOLLY OR PARTLY, BY ANY ENTRY IN RESPECT OF AN EXPENSE RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS MAINTAINED IN THE NORMAL COURSE RELATING TO THE SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YEAR WHICH IS FO UND TO BE FALSE AND WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE SO HAD THE SEARCH NOT BEEN CONDUCTED.] 7. REFERRING TO THE SAME, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSES SEE CONTENDED THAT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME MEANT ANY INCOME WHICH WAS REPRESENTED BY ANY ASSET FOUND DUR ING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR ANY ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN RECORDED BEF ORE THE DATE OF SEARCH OR NOT DISCLOSED EARLIER TO THE PRINCIPAL, CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX ACT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE CONTENDED THA T SOME INCRIMINATING MATERIAL REPRESENTING EARLIER UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE BE EN FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHICH WOULD QUALI FY AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEVY OF PEN ALTY U/S 271AAB OF THE ACT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO ANY DOCUMENT OR ASSET FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH EITHER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OR IN THE PENALTY ORDER AND, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO CASE OF LEVY OF PENALTY AT ALL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE CON TENDED THAT AS PER THE DEFINITION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME, I F ANY ENTRY IS FOUND TO BE FALSE, THE SAME ALSO QUALIFIES AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME BUT EVEN THAT HAS NOT BEEN FOUND IN ASSESSEES CASE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE RELIE D UPON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIO N THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME NO PENALTY U/S 271AAB WAS LEVIABLE: 1. DCIT VS. HARI SINGH, ITA NO.598/CHD/2017 CHD-TRI B 2. DCIT VS. MANISH AGARWAL, ITA NO.1479/KOL/2015 KO L- TRIB 3. DCIT VS. AMIT AGARWAL, ITA NO.1471/KOL/2015 KOL- TRIB 4. ACIT VS. S.MARTIN, ITA NO.2382/CHENY/2016 CHENAI - TRIB 5. DCIT VS. M/S ARYAN MINING & TRADING CORPORATION LTD., ITA NO.1601/KOL/2017 KOL-TRIB 6. DCIT VS. RASHMI CEMENT LTD., ITA NO.1606/KOL/201 7 KOL-TRIB 7. DCIT VS. RASHMI METALIKS LTD., ITA NO.1608/KOL/2 017 KOL-TRIB 8. THE LD. DR AT THIS JUNCTURE COUNTERED BY DRAWING OUR ATTENTION TO THE SURRENDER LETTER OF THE ASSESSEE REPRODUCED IN THE PENALTY ORDER AS UNDER: THE JOINT/ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX DT. 11-4-2014 6 (INV.), LUDHIANA SIR, RE: SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS AT THE RESIDENT IAL AND BUSINESS PREMISES OF M/S DEEPAK BUILDERS AND OTHER GROUP OF CASES. THIS HAS A REFERENCE TO THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPER ATIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE DEPARTMENT ON 20,03.2014 AT THE VARIOUS BUSINESS PR EMISES OF M/S DEEPAK BUILDERS GROUP OF COMPANIES AND RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE DIRECTORS/PARTNERS. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES WERE THERE IN THE CASES OF DEEPAK BUILDERS .AND OTHER COMPANIES, PARTNERSHIP FIRMS AND INDIVID UALS CASES OF (GROUP; THESE DISCREPANCIES WERE IN .RESPECT. OF; THE BOOKS OF AC COUNTS OF THE BUSINESS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO, THERE WERE CERTAIN ENTRIE S WHICH HAD NOT YET BEEN RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR THE DI FFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE- SAID DISCREPANCIES RELATE TO THE SAME NATURE OF BUS INESS AS REFLECTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARID OTHERWISE AND IS A PART AND PARCEL OF THE SAME BUSINESS ACTIVITY AS REFLECTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED WITH THE DE PARTMENT AND IN ORDER TO COVER SUCH DISCREPANCIES AND OTHERS, WE HEREBY OFFER A SU M OF RS. 23 CRORES (RUPEES TWENTY THREE CRORES ONLY) AS ADDITIONAL INCOME AS DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME ALREADY FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OVER AND ABOVE THE REGUL AR INCOME AND THE SAID INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED FROM THE SAME SOURCE.. WE .HAD ALR EADY GIVEN AN OFFER OF SURRENDER OF TWENTY THREE CRORES IN THE GROUP AS A WHOLE AND, NOW, IN THIS LETTER, THE OFFER REMAINS THE SAME AND ALSO PERSONS IN WHOSE HANDS TH E AMOUNT HAS BEEN OFFERED ARE ALSO THE SAME BUT THERE ARE SOME ADJUSTMENTS AN D, NOW, THE HEAD-WISE BIFURCATION AFTER EXAMINATION THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS, THE AMOUNT OFFERED AS BUSINESS INCOME FROM THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES IS AS UNDER.- NAME OF THE CONCERN/INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT YEAR . AMOUNT SURRENDERED BASIS M/S DEEPAK BUILDERS 2014-15 2013-14 14,02,00,000.00 21,00,000.00 OFFERED AS BUSINESS INCOME TO COVER ANY DISCREPANCIES IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AS FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND ALSO TO COVER ANY KIND OF DISCREPANCY IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE ABOVE INCOME WAS EARNED IN THE SAME MANNER AS STATED ABOVE AS PER REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THAT INCOME IS YET TO BE RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ABOVE INCOME IS REFLECTED IN VARIOUS EXPENSES I.E. PAYMENT OF LABOUR EXPENSES ETC. AND OTHER SEIZED RECORDS AND ANY KIND OF PROFIT ELEMENT FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013- 2014 IS BEING OFFERED 7 SH DEEPAK SINGAL 2014 -15 2013- 14 2012 -13 2011 -12 2009 -10 2008 -09 6,70,00,000.00 10,00,000.00 16,00,000.00 60,00,000.00 60,00,000.00 21,00,000.00 OFFERED AS BUSINESS' INCOME TO COVER ANY DISCREPANCIES IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AS FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AS PER VARIOUS ANNEXURE AND FOR ANY KIND OF DISCREPANCY IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE ABOVE INCOME WAS EARNED IN THE SAME MANN ER AS REFLECTED IN MY RETURN OF INCOME. THE ABOVE INCOME IS REFLECTED IN VARIOUS PERSONAL ASSETS INCLUDING AMOUNT SPEND ON CONSTRUCTION, CASH AND TO COVER ANY INVESTMENT IN THE IMMOVABLE/MOVEABLE ASSET. THE INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 -2009 TO 2013- 2014 IS BEING OFFERED SUBJECT TO NO PENALTY U/S 271(1 )(C) OF THE INCOME TAX SMT. SUNITA SINGAL 2014 -15 15,00,000.00 OFFERED INCOME EARNED FROM SALE OR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AND TH E SAME INCOME REFLECTED IN CONSTRUCTION/INVEST MERIT TO IMMOVABLE ASSETS AND TO COVER ANY OTHER ASSET OR, DOCUMENTS AS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND JEWELLERY, CASH ETC. AND OTHER MISC. ACTIVITIES. SH.KAMAL SINGAL 2014 -15 15,00,000.00 TO COVE R ALL THE DOCUMENTS AS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND THE INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED FROM COMMISSION/BROKERAGE FROM PROPERTY DEALING. SH.VISHAL SINGAL 2014 -15 10,00,000.00 TO COVER ALL THE DOCUMENTS AS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND THE I NCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED FROM COMMISSION/ BROKERAGE FROM PROPERTY DEALING . 2. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT THERE WAS A . SURVEY OPERATION ON THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSES ON 8,1,2010 I.E. IN THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011 AND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A SURRENDER OF RS.4 C RORES (RS. 3 CRORES IN THE CASE OF M/S DEEPAK BUILDERS AND RS.1 CRORE IN THE CASE OF SHRI DEEPAL SINGAL, PROPRIETOR M/S DEEPAK BUILDCON). THE ABOVE SURRENDER IN THE CASE OF M/S DEEPAK; BUILDERS OF RS.3 CRORES COVERS ALL THE LOOSE DOCUMENTS OR ANY KIND OF IMPLICATION OF INCOME IN T HE SEIZED DOCUMENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SE A RCH, IF ANY AND RS.1 CRORE IN THE CASE OF SHRI DEEP AK SINGAL PROPRIETOR M/S DEEPAK BUILDCON COVERS THE CASH RECE IVED ON ACCOUNT OF THE SALE OF FLATS OVER AND ABOVE THE AMOUNT REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-010 ARID 2010- 2011. THE ASSESSES SHRI DEEPAK SINGAL HAD BEEN EARNED THE INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF THE SALE OF FLATS AND THE SAME INCOME AS OFFERED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY HAD BEEN REFLECTED IN THE CASH, RECOVERABLE AND AMOUNT SPENDS IN THE, CONSTRUCTION OF FLATS. THE COPY OF THE STATEMENT AS RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY IS BEING ENCLOSED HEREWITH FOR YOUR READY REFERENCE. 3. THE ABOVE AMOUNT AS OFFERED ARE TENTATIVE AND SU BJECT TO CHANGE ANY TIME DURING PROCEEDING BEFORE YOUR GOODSELF AND ALSO FILING OF THE RETURN U/S 153A BUT OFFER WILL REMAIN THE SAME AND COVERS ALL THE ISSUES AS PER SE IZED RECORD OR ANY KIND OF DISCREPANCY IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHERWISE AND IS THE, B USINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ABOVE OFFER ALSO COVERS THE! ROUGH NOTINGS/ESTIMATES AND OTHER SLIPS ON ACCOUNT OF SALES, PURCHASES OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, BESIDES, PROFIT ELEMENT ON ACCO UNT OF VARIATION IN THE SALE RATES OF RATS ETC. AND TO COVER OTHER DISCREPANCIES. 4. THE ABOVE OFFER IN, THE .DIFFERENT YEARS AS MENT IONED .ABOVE IS BEING MADE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT AND THIS OFFER IS BEIN G MADE SUBJECT TO NO PENALTY U/S 271AAA/ 271AAB/271(1)(C) AND PROSECUTION AND THE ABOVE INCO ME SHALL BE DECLARED BY OUR GROUP CONCERNS IN RESPECTIVE YEARS .WHILE FILING THE RETU RN IN THE RELEVANT YEARS OVER AND ABOVE. 9. REFERRING TO THE SAME THE LD. DR POINTED OUT THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD SURRENDERED AN AMOUNT O RS.10 LACS IN HIS CASE AND AS PER THE SURRENDER LETTER IT WAS ON ACCOUNT 8 OF DISCREPANCY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE BUSIN ESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND CERTAIN ENTRIES NOT RECORDED IN TH E REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH WERE NOTED DURING SEARCH. THE LD. DR POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D EVEN STATED IN THE SURRENDER LETTER THAT IT HAD DER IVED INCOME FROM COMMISSION/BROKERAGE FROM PROPERTY ON ACCOUNT OF WHICH THE SURRENDER HAD BEEN MADE. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO PARA-1 OF THE SURRENDER LETT ER POINTING OUT THAT THE ABOVE FACTS HAD BEEN STATED THEREIN. THE LD. DR THEREAFTER DREW OUR ATTENTION T O PARA- 3 OF THE LETTER POINTING OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD REITERATED THE FACT THAT THE SURRENDER WAS BEING MA DE ON ACCOUNT OF DISCREPANCIES IN THE SEIZED RECORDS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH INCLUDI NG ROUGH NOTES/ASSESSMENTS AND OTHER SLIPS ON ACCOUNT OF SALES, PURCHASES OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND O THER DISCREPANCIES. THE LD.DR THEREFORE, STATED THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE THAT NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHICH RELATED TO THE SURRENDER MADE WAS FACT UALLY INCORRECT. THE LD. DR FURTHER RELIED UPON THE FINDI NGS OF THE LD.CIT(A) AT PARA 4.1 OF HIS ORDER AS UNDER: THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ORDER OF THE AO IMPOSIN G THE PENALTY AND THE ARGUMENTS OF THE AR DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS HA VE BEEN CONSIDERED. THE AR HAS REPEATED THE CONTENTIONS WHICH WERE RAISED B EFORE THE AO. IT IS FAIRLY CONCEDED BY THE AR THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 271AAA ARE NOT APPLICABLE AND NOW THE CASE IS GOVERNED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271AAB. FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE AND TO HAVE CLARITY IN THE M ATTER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 271AAB WHICH ARE APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE UND ER CONSIDERATION ARE REPRODUCED BELOW. '271AAB. (1) THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY, NOTWITHSTANDING ANYT HING CONTAINED IN ANY OTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, DIRECT THAT, IN A CASE WHERE SEARCH HAS BEEN INITIATED UNDER SECTION 132 ON OR AFTER THE 1 ST DAY OF JULY, 2012, THE ASSESSEE SHALL PAY BY WAY OF PENALTY, IN ADDITION TO TAX, IF ANY, PAYABLE BY HIM,- (A) A SUM COMPUTED AT THE RATE OF TEN PER CENT OF T HE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YEAR, IF SUCH ASSESSEE- (I) IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH, IN A STATEMENT UND ER SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 132, ADMITS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND SPECIFIES TH E MANNER IN WHICH SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED; (II) SUBSTANTIATES THE MANNER IN WHICH THE UNDISCLO SED INCOME WAS DERIVED; AND (III) ON OR BEFORE THE SPECIFIED DATE- (A) PAYS THE TAX, TOGETHER WITH INTEREST, IF ANY, I N RESPECT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME; AND (B) FURNISHES THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE SPECIFIE D PREVIOUS YEAR DECLARING SUCH UNDISCLOSED INCOME THEREIN; (B) A SUM COMPUTED AT THE RATE OF TWENTY PER CENT O F THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YEAR, IF SUCH ASSE SSEE- (I) IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH, IN A STATEMENT UND ER SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 132, DOES NOT ADMIT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME; AND (II) ON OR BEFORE THE SPECIFIED DATE- (A) DECLARES SUCH INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FU RNISHED FOR THE SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YEAR; AND (B) PAYS THE TAX, TOGETHER WITH INTEREST, IF ANY, I N RESPECT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME; (C) A SUM WHICH SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN THIRTY PER C ENT BUT WHICH SHALL NOT EXCEED NINETY PER CENT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YEAR, IF IT IS NOT COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSES ( A) AND (B). 9 (2) NO PENALTY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (C) O F SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 271 SHALL BE IMPOSED UPON THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT O F THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME REFERRED TO IN SUB SECTION (1). (3) ... AS ADMITTED BY THE AR ALSO, THAT THE INCOME OF RS. 10,00,000/- WAS SURRENDERED DURING THE SEARCH. REGARDING THE BASIS IT WAS ADMITTED (AS PER THE SURRENDERED LETTER REPRODUCED BY THE AO IN THE PENA LTY ORDER) BY THE ASSESSEE THAT COVER ALL THE DOCUMENTS AS FOUND DURING THE CO URSE OF SEARCH AND THE INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED FROM COMMISSION/BROKERAGE FRO M PROPERTY DEALING'. THE AO HAS RIGHTLY MENTIONED THAT IN THIS CASE THE INCOME OF RS. 10,00,000/- WAS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THE SAME WAS NOT DISCLOSED TO THE DEPARTMENT TILL THE SEARCH ACTION. T HE ASSESSEE HAS SURRENDERED THIS AMOUNT UNDER SECTION 132 ON 11.04.2014. THEREFO RE, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271AAB ARE APPLICABLE. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS COVERED UNDER SUB-SECTION (L)(A) OF SECTION 271AAB AS THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE TAX ALONG WITH THE INTEREST AND DISCLOSED THE AMOUNT IN THE RETURN. THE LANGUAGE OF THE SECTION IS VERY CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS THAT IN A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE ADMITS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME UNDER SECTION 132(4), THEN THE ASSESSEE SHALL PAY PENALTY EQUAL TO 10% OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE PROVISIONS OF LAW, THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE AO IN THIS CASE IS FOUND AS PER LAW AND HENCE SUSTAINED. ACCORDINGLY, THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTI ES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE S OLE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AGAINST THE LE VY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271AAB OF THE ACT, IS THAT NO INCRIMI NATING MATERIAL REPRESENTING UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE W AS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. WE DO NOT FIND ANY ME RIT IN THIS CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 11. THE SURRENDER LETTER OF THE ASSESSEE, ADMITTING TO THE DISCREPANCIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND CERTAIN E NTRIES NOT BEING RECORDED IN THE BOOKS, AS ALSO SPECIFIC ADMIS SION TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCLOSED THE INCOME RELATING TO COMMISSION AND BROKERAGE, CONTRADICTS THIS CONTENTI ON OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. IN THE SURRENDER LETTER, AS REPRODUCED IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER, THE ASSESSEE HAS CATEGORICALLY ADMITTED THAT THERE WERE DISCREPANCIES IN RESPECT O F THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE BUSINESS MAINTAINED BY HIM AND TH ERE WERE CERTAIN ENTRIES WHICH HAD NOT BEEN RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS AND THAT THE SAID DISCREPANCIES RELATED TO THE SAME NATURE OF BUSINES S AS REFLECTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. FURTHER, IN THE SURRENDER LETTER THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SPECIFICALLY ADMITTED THAT H IS INCOME FROM COMMISSION AND BROKERAGE HAD REMAINED UNDISCLOSED. THE ASSESSEE HAD SURRENDERED AN AMOUNT OF RS.10 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF THESE ADMITTED UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND ON ACCO UNT OF DISCREPANCIES IN THE DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE SEA RCH. THE LETTER ALSO MENTIONS THE NATURE OF DISCREPANCIES FO UND, BEING ROUGH NOTINGS/ESTIMATES, OTHER SLIPS ON ACCOUNT OF SALES, PURCHASES OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, BESIDES PRO FIT ELEMENT ON ACCOUNT OF VARIATION IN THE SALE RATES OF FLAT, ETC. CLEARLY, THE SURRENDER BEING SO SPECIFIC CANNOT NOT BE SAID TO B E MERELY TO BUY PEACE OF MIND. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NEVER RETRACTED THE SURRENDER SO MADE; ON THE CONTRARY, HE HAS DISC LOSED THE AMOUNT SURRENDERED AS HIS BUSINESS INCOME IN THE RE TURN OF INCOME FILED AND ACCEPTED THE ASSESSMENT OF THE SAM E AS SUCH, BY THE A.O. ALL THE ABOVE FACTS HAVE REMAINED UNCON TROVERTED BEFORE US. THIS SPECIFIC UNRETRACTED ADMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE OF EARLIER UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND DISCREPANCIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, WE HOLD, IS WITHOUT ANY DOUBT THE BEST PI ECE OF EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND IS INCRIMINATING MATERIAL ENOUGH REPRESENTING UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE PURP OSE OF LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271AAB OF THE ACT. THE AS SESSEE HAD HIMSELF ADMITTED TO THE FACT OF HAVING NOT DISCLOSE D THE INCOME 10 ON ACCOUNT OF BROKERAGE AND COMMISSION EARNED AND H AD HIMSELF ADMITTED TO THE FACT THAT THERE WERE DISCRE PANCIES AND UNRECORDED ENTRIES IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ALS O CERTAIN ROUGH NOTINGS AND ESTIMATES. HAVING HIMSELF ADMITTE D TO ALL THESE FACTS AND AT NO POINT OF TIME HAVING EVER RETRACTED THIS ADMISSION, THE SAME CONSTITUTES INCRIMINATING MATER IAL AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND THERE WAS NO FURTHER REQUIREMENT F OR THE REVENUE IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES TO HAVE UNEARTHED EVI DENCE SUPPORTING THIS ADMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE. 12. THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE ON VARIOUS CASE LAWS ,WE FIND ARE OF NO ASSISTANCE SIN CE THEY ARE ALL DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. IN NONE OF THE CASE LAWS THE ASSESSEE HAD SPECIFICALLY ADMITTED TO EARLIER UNDISCLOSED IN COME. IN THE CASE OF HARI SINGH (SUPRA) PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271 A AB OF THE ACT, ON ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN VALUAT ION OF JEWELLERY WAS DELETED HOLDING THAT THE DIFFERENCE I N VALUE OF RS.1.3 LACS ON VALUATION OF RS.1.2 CRORES WAS NOT U NNATURAL AND COULD BE ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AND WA S THEREFORE NOT IN THE NATURE OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSE SSEE. IN THE CASE OF MANISH AGGARWAL(SUPRA),IT WAS NOTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENGAGED IN ANY BUSINESS OR PROFESSION AND W AS NOT REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING SEARCH DISCLOSING SPECULATIVE COMMODIT Y TRANSACTION UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS SU RRENDERED ,WAS HELD TO BE RECORDED IN THE OTHER DOCUMENTS O F THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE HELD TO BE NOT UNDISCLOSED INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE DEFINITION OF THE SAME IN SECTI ON 271AAB OF THE ACT. IN THE CASE OF S. MARTIN (SUPRA) THE SURRE NDER MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO BE NOT ADMITTED ON THE BA SIS OF ANY MATERIAL ,DOCUMENT AND WAS JUST A GENERAL SURRENDER , WHICH THEREFORE WAS NOT HELD TO CONSTRUE UNDISCLOSED INCO ME FOR THE PURPOSES OF LEVY OF PENALTY. IN THE CASE OF RASHMI CEMENT(SUPRA) IT WAS NOTED THAT THE SURRENDER MADE WAS SUO MOTO, GENERAL ,TO BUY PIECE OF MIND AND NOT BASED ON ANY MATERIAL. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IT WAS HELD THAT THE SURRENDER DID NO T IN ITSELF CONSTITUTE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL/UNDISCLOSED INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE. THE FACTS LEADING TO THE DELETION OF PENA LTY IN THE CASE OF RASMI METALIKS(SUPRA) WE FIND ARE IDENTICAL TO T HAT IN THE CASE OF RASHMI CEMENTS (SUPRA). THUS CLEARLY NONE OF TH E CASE LAWS ARE OF ANY ASSISTANCE TO THE ASSESSEE SINCE IN THE IMPUGNED CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE SPECIFIC ADMISSION OF HAVING UNDISCLOSED INCOME RELATING TO COMMISSION/BROKERAGE AND DISCRE PANCIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH HAS REMAINED UNRETRACTE D. 13. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE CONCUR WITH THE FINDIN GS OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE SPECIFIC ADMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND DISCREPANCIES IN ITS ACCOUNT S CONSTITUTED INCRIMINATING MATERIAL REPRESENTING UNDISCLOSED INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSES OF LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271AAB OF THE ACT. WE, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESS EE IS DISMISSED. 14. NOW, TAKING UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN IT A NO.936/CHD/2018, THE FACTS OF THE CASE WE FIND ARE IDENTICAL, WITH THE ASSESSEE, SMT. SUNITA SINGAL, ALSO BEING O NE OF THE PERSONS SEARCHED IN THE DEEPAK SINGAL GROUP OF CASE S AND THE ASSESSEE HAVING SURRENDERED AN AMOUNT OF RS.15 LAKH S DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, ON WHICH PENALTY UNDER SECTION 27 1AAB OF THE ACT WAS LEVIED. THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD.COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE, AGAINST LEVY OF PENALTY WERE IDENTICAL AS IN THE CASE OF SH. VISHAL SINGAL IN ITA NO.935/CHD/2018 DEALT WITH US ABOVE, THAT NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL REPRESENTING UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 15. IN THIS CASE, WE HAVE NOTED FROM THE SURRENDER LETTER OF THE ASSESSEE REPRODUCED ABOVE IN PARA , THAT THE SURREN DER OF RS.15 LAKHS WAS IDENTICAL AS IN THE CASE OF VISHAL SINGAL IN ITA 11 NO.935/CHD/2018 TO COVER ALL DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND TO COVER THE INCOME DERIVED FROM SALE OR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY, WHICH REMAINED UNDISCLOSED EARLIER AND THE SAME REFLECTED IN CONSTRUCTION/INVESTMENT IN IMMOVABLE A SSETS. SINCE THE FACTS LEADING TO LEVY OF PENALTY IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN IT A NO.935/CHD/2018 AND THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE A GAINST THE SAME ARE ALSO IDENTICAL, OUR DECISION RENDERED IN T HE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.935/CHD/2018 WILL SQUARELY APPLY TO THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, FOLLOWING WHICH WE UPHOLD THE OR DER OF THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271AAB OF THE ACT, AMOUNTING TO RS.1.50 LAKHS. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 16. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 6. AS A RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE HEREBY DISMISSED. SD/- SD/- . '.., # $, (SANJAY GARG ) ( DR. B.R.R. KUM AR) / JUDICIAL MEMBER %& / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AG DATE: 31/05/2019 (+ ! ,- .- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT , 2 THE RESPONDENT , 3. CIT, 4. THE CIT(A), 5. DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH, 6. GUARD FILE