The DCIT, Central Circle-1, Baroda V. M/s.i Shiv Industrial Infrastructure Park, Baroda

ITSSA 88/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3691 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 01-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Document seized; Earning of tax free income; Documents seized
• 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 IT(SS)A NOS. 88 & 482/AHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YE ARS: 2011-12 & 2012-13) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, RACE COURSE CIRCLE, BARODA APPELLANT VS. M/S. SHIV INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE PARK, 3, DARSHAN PARK SOCIETY, VIP ROAD, KARELIBAUG, BARODA 390018 RESP ONDENT PAN: ABJFS5761N / 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 THESE TWO REVENUES APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 201 1-12 AND 2012-13 ARISE AGAINST THE CIT(A) - 12, AHMEDABADS COMMON O RDER DATED 05.10.2015, IN CASE NOS. CIT(A)-12/CC-1/BARODA/365B, 366B/14-15 , REVERSING ASSESSING IT(SS)A NOS. 88 & 482/AHD/2016 [DCIT VS. M/S. SHIV INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE PARK] A.YS. 2011-12 & 2012-13 - 2 - OFFICERS ACTION IMPOSING PENALTIES OF RS.28.70LACS AND RS.61.30LACS; RESPECTIVELY, IN PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271AAA OF THE INC OME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILES PERUSED. 2. IT EMERGES AT THE OUTSET THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DELE TED THE IMPUGNED IDENTICAL PENALTIES BY THE FOLLOWING DETAILED REASO NING: 4. I HAVE GIVEN VERY CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE FACTS AND RIVAL CONTENTIONS AVAILABLE BEFORE ME. THE STATEMENT U/S 132(4) OF SHRI ANIL BHOLABHAI PATEL DATED 9-10/8/2011 (Q 11, 12) AND PA GE NOS. 5 TO 8 OF THE STATEMENT ALONG WITH THE UNDATED LETTER SUBMITTED T O THE ADIT HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY PERUSED BY ME WHEN THE LD. AR TOOK ME THR OUGH THE SAME. SIMILARLY, FULL CONTENT OF THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED IN RESPO NSE TO NOTICE U/S 153C, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS ALSO THE ORDER OF PENALTY HAVE ALSO BEEN PERUSED BY ME. UPON SUCH PERUSAL, I HAVE NOTICED AS UNDER: 1) SHRI ANIL BHOLABAHAI IS A PARTNER OF THE FIRM AN D HE HAS, VIDE ANSWER TO QUESTION NO. 11 AND 12, CLEARLY ADMITTED UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 35 CRORES FOR THE WHOLE GROUP. THIS A DMISSION IS RE-CONFIRMED AT THE BOTTOM OF THE STATEMENT BY OTHE R 15 INDIVIDUALS OF THE GROUP, AS CAN BE SEEN ON PAGE 7- 8 OF THE STATEMENT. 2) VIDE ANSWER TO QUESTION 11, SHRI ANIL PATEL HAS CLEARLY STATED THAT THE ADMISSION OF RS. 35 CRORES IS 'ON BEHALF O F VARIOUS FIRMS AND THEIR PARTNERS AND OTHER RELATED INDIVIDU ALS', AND AFTER CONSULTATION WITH RESPECTIVE PEOPLE, 'WHO HAV E SIGNED THIS STATEMENT AS A TOKEN OF THEIR CONSENT/SUCH CONSULTA TION' 3) THE Q-11 CLEARLY SUGGESTS THAT THE ADMISSION IS BASED ON TRANSACTION DEPICTED IN SEIZED DOCUMENTS. 4) THERE IS NO FURTHER PROBE OR QUERY ABOUT THE MAN NER OR SUBSTANTIATION OF EARNING UNACCOUNTED INCOME BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER. 5) THE STATEMENT DATED 9-10/8/2011 IS FURTHER FOLLO WED UP BY A CLEAR CUT BIFURCATION OF THE HANDS AND ASSESSMENT Y EARS IN WHICH THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME IS OFFERED, ALONG WITH CLEAR POINTING OUT OF THE MANNER OF EARNING THE UNACCOUNT ED INCOME IN RESPECTIVE HANDS. AS PER RECORD TO ESTABLISH THA T THIS 'DISCLOSURE' HAS EITHER NOT BEEN HONOURED OR THAT T HE AO HAS FOUND THE SAME NOT DISCLOSED IN THE RESPECTIVE RETU RNS OF INCOME OR FOUND ANYTHING FISHY ABOUT THE SAME. AS SUCH, TH E -AO HAS AFTER ASSESSING THE INCOME FOR THE RESPECTIVE ASSES SMENT YEARS AT THE SAME RETURNED INCOMES, INITIATED THE PROCEED INGS U/S 271AAA. IT(SS)A NOS. 88 & 482/AHD/2016 [DCIT VS. M/S. SHIV INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE PARK] A.YS. 2011-12 & 2012-13 - 3 - 6) THERE IS NO FURTHER SPECIFIC QUERY DURING INVEST IGATION PROCEEDINGS OR ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING OR PENALTY P ROCEEDING TO ELICIT ANY FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE MA NNER OF EARNING UNACCOUNTED INCOME. NO ADDITION TO INCOME RETURNED U/S 153C HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO. 5. IN VIEW OF THE CLEAR CUT FACTS AS EVIDENT AND NOTED BY ME ABOVE, THE LD. AR IS RIGHT IN CONTENDING THAT THE OBSERVATION OF T HE LD. AO THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT DISCHARGED THE ONUS OF STATING THE MANNER O F EARNING THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME FOR CLAIMING BENEFIT OF S. 271AAA(2) IS NOT SUPPORTED BY FACTS AND EVIDENCES AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS SUCH NONE OF THE OBJECTIONS CONTAINED IN THE ORDER OF PENALTY AND SUMMARIZED BY ME ON PAGE 3 OF THIS ORDER ARE SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCES AVAILABLE ON RECORD TO W HICH MY ATTENTION HAS BEEN DRAWN BY THE LD. AR. AS IN THE CASE OF RAJEND RA PRASAD DOKANIA (SUPRA), NEITHER THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER NOR THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS PUT ANY QUERY FURTHER TO PROBE THE MANNER OF EARNING THE UN ACCOUNTED INCOME DURING 132(4) OR THEREAFTER AND THEREFORE, ASSESSEE SH OULD BE DEEMED TO HAVE DISCHARGED ITS ONUS U/S 271AAA(2)(II). AS SUC H, THE VERY ADMISSION OF THE APPELLANT TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ADMISSION IS BY WAY OF WITHDRAWING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IA IS COMPREHENSIVE AND CONCL USIVE. IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION AS ENRICHED BY THE JUDICIAL WISDOM CONTAINE D IN VARIOUS OTHER AUTHORITIES CITED BY THE LD. AR AND MINUTELY PERUSE D BY ME, THE VERY FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT CLAIMED ANY DEDUCTION U/S 801A IN THE RETURN OF INCOME IN CONFORMITY WITH THE STATEMENT/DIS CLOSURE U/S 132(4), NOR ANY ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT AND NO FUR THER QUERY HAS BEEN RAISED NOT ONLY BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER BUT EVEN BOTH AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE AND AT THE PENALTY STAGE WOULD CLEARLY ESTABLISH, I PSO FACTO, THAT THE ONUS UNDER S. 271AAA(2) WITH REGARD TO MANNER AND SUBSTA NTIATION HAS BEEN FLAWLESSLY DISCHARGED BY THE APPELLANT. 'WITH REGAR D TO SUBSTANTIATION OF THE MANNER OF EARNING UNACCOUNTED INCOME, IN ONE OF THE CASES OF PENALTY U/S 271AAA DECIDED BY ME, NAMELY, SHANTI BUILDERS [CIT( A)-12/7/CC-2(2)/14-15] DATED 31/08/2015, I HAVE OBSERVED, OPINED AND HELD THAT THERE HAS TO BE ONLY A BROAD COMPLIANCE WITH REGARD TO REQUIREMENT OF STAT ING THE MANNER AND SUBSTANTIATING THE SAME WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTI ON 271AAA(2)(II) AS UNDER: 8. APART FROM THE ABOVE DECISIONS, THE LD. AR HAS A LSO HEAVILY RELIED ON JURISDICTIONAL HC DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MAHENDRA C SHAH 299 ITR 305 DRAWING MY ATTENTION TO THE FOLLOW ING OBSERVATION OF THE HONBLE HC WITH REFERENCE TO REQUIREMENT OF EXP LANATION 5 TO S. 271(1)(C) WHICH IS IN PARI 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 M ANNER IN WHICH SUCH INCOME HAD BEEN DERIVED, WHEN THE STATEMENT WA S BEING RECORDED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON HI M TO 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 IT(SS)A NOS. 88 & 482/AHD/2016 [DCIT VS. M/S. SHIV INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE PARK] A.YS. 2011-12 & 2012-13 - 4 - 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 SPE CIFIC AND TO THE POINT REGARDING THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED BY THE EXCEPTIO N NO. 2 WHILE MAKING STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 132(4). THE VIEW TAK EN BY THE TRIBUNAL TO THE EFFECT THAT EVEN IF THE STATEMENT DOES NOT S PECIFY THE MANNER IN WHICH THE INCOME IS DERIVED, IF THE INCOME IS DECLA RED AND TAX THEREON IS PAID, THERE WOULD BE SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE NOT WARRANTING ANY FURTHER DENIAL OF THE BENEFIT UNDER THE EXCEPTION N O. 2 IN THE EXPLANATION 5 WAS COMMENDABLE. [PARA 15][EMPHASIS S UPPLIED] 9. THE ABOVE VIEW OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HC HAS ALS O BEEN REITERATED BY HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HC IN CONNECTION WI TH CLAUSE (2) OF EXPLANATION 5 TO S. 271(1)(C) IN CIT V. SIDH NATH G OEL 359 ITR 481: 7. THE ITAT RELIED UPON JUDGMENTS OF MADRAS HIGH CO URT IN CIT V. S.D.V. CHANDRU [2004] 266 ITR 175/136 TAXMAN 537 ; AND RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN CIT V. MISHRIMALSONI [20071 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 OT HER WORDS TO THE EXTENT THE ASSESSEE MAKES A CLEAN BREAST OF HIS UND ISCLOSED INCOME REPRESENTED BY ASSETS FOUND TO BE IN THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSES HE IS NET DEEMED TO HAVE CONCEALED HIS INCOME OR CONCEALE D PARTICULARS THEREOF. THE EXPLANATION IS NOT CONFINED TO PHYSICA L POSSESSION BUT EXTENDS TO OTHER FORMS OF POSSESSION, [EMPHASIS SUP PLIED] 10. THUS, THE JUDICIAL OPINION IS UNAMBIGUOUS TO TH E 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 FI LING RETURN U/S 153A AND PAYING TAXES. THE OTHER REQUIREMENT OF SPECIFIC ATION AND SUBSTANTIATION OF MANNER OF EARNING IS ONLY TO BE B ROADLY INSISTED UPON. AS OBSERVED BY GUJARAT HC (SUPRA), 'SECONDLY, CONSI DERING THE SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO EXPECT FROM AN A SSESSEE, WHETHER LITERATE OR ILLITERATE, TO BE SPECIFIC AND TO THE P OINT REGARDING THE IT(SS)A NOS. 88 & 482/AHD/2016 [DCIT VS. M/S. SHIV INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE PARK] A.YS. 2011-12 & 2012-13 - 5 - CONDITIONS STIPULATED BY THE EXCEPTION NO. 2 WHILE MAKING STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 132(4). THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNA L TO THE EFFECT THAT EVEN IF THE STATEMENT DOES NOT SPECIFY THE MANNER I N WHICH THE INCOME IS DERIVED, IF THE INCOME IS DECLARED AND TAX THERE ON IS PAID, THERE WOULD BE SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE NOT WARRANTING ANY FURTHER DENIAL OF THE BENEFIT UNDER THE EXCEPTION NO. 2 IN THE EXPLAN ATION 5 WAS COMMENDABLE.', THE ASSESSEE HAS IN FACT MADE MORE T HAN SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE V ARIOUS JUDGMENTS AS CITED AND DISCUSSED ABOVE, I FIND MYSELF IN AGREEME NT WITH THE AVERMENT OF THE LD. 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 OTHE R HONBLE HC AND ITAT BENCHES AS DETAILED ABOVE. 6. KEEPING WITH THE PARAMOUNT JUDICIAL REQUIREMENT OF FOLLOWING ONE'S OWN DECISION, I HAVE NO HESITATION IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS, AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE AR, FULLY DISCHARGED THE ONUS U/S 271AAA(2). AS SUCH, IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE DIS CLOSURE WAS BY WAY OF 'WITHDRAWING CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA', WHICH HA S BEEN HONOURED BY THE APPELLANT BY NOT CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION. IT IS INCO MPREHENSIBLE AS TO HOW IN SUCH' A SCENARIO THE ID. AO HAS COME TO THE CONCLUS ION THAT THE MANNER OF EARNING UNACCOUNTED INCOME HAS NOT BEEN SUBSTANTIAT ED. THE FINDING OF THE ID. AO IS AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL FACTS AND EVIDENCES A VAILABLE ON RECORD AND IS THUS WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED. MOREOVER, IT IS WRONG ON T HE PART OF THE AO TO READ INTO SECTION 271AAA(2) THE REQUIREMENTS OF EITHER ' MAINTAINING SEPARATE DETAILS OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME' OR 'PROVIDING MODUS OPERANDI OR PROVING BONA FIDES'. THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 271AAA(2)( II) FOR CLAIMING IMMUNITY HAVE BEEN LIBERALLY INTERPRETED BY VARIOUS AUTHORIT IES AND ARE HELD TO BE REQUIRING ONLY A BROAD COMPLIANCE THERETO. IN VIEW OF THIS, IT IS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAS CLEARLY FULFILLED THE CONDITION NO.(I ) AND (II) OF SECTION 271AAA(2). THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE APPELLANT H AS MADE THE PAYMENT OF TAXES WITH INTEREST THEREON. I HAVE ALREADY GIVEN A FINDING OF FACT THAT THE AMOUNT RETURNED IN RETURN U/S 153C AND ACCEPTED BY THE LD. AO WITHOUT ANY ADDITION HAS BEEN DISCLOSED U/S 132(4) IN STATEMENT DATED 9-10/8/2011 READ WITH SUBSEQUENT LETTER TO ADIT. CONDITION OF STATIN G AND SUBSTANTIATING THE MANNER IS ALSO CLEARLY SATISFIED BY THE APPELLANT. THUS, ALL 3 LIMBS OF THE REQUIREMENT OF S. 271AAA(2), HAVING BEEN SATISFIED BY THE APPELLANT, NO GROUND JUSTIFYING THE LEVY OF PENALTY SURVIVES. THU S, PENALTY NEEDS TO BE CANCELLED AND IS THUS CANCELLED. THE APPELLANT GETS RELIEF AS UNDER: A.Y. RELIEF 2011-12 RS.28,70,000/- 2012-13 RS.61,30,000/- IT(SS)A NOS. 88 & 482/AHD/2016 [DCIT VS. M/S. SHIV INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE PARK] A.YS. 2011-12 & 2012-13 - 6 - 3. THE REVENUES SOLE SUBSTANTIVE ARGUMENT IS THAT T HE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN DELETING THE IMPUGNED PE NALTIES PARTICULARLY SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO SATISFY FORMER TWO CONDITION S OF IMMUNITY ENVISAGED U/S.271AAA(2) OF THE AC I.E. SATISFYING THE MANNER OF HAVING DERIVED EXEMPT INCOME IN QUESTION FOLLOWED BY ITS SUBSTANTIATION. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THEREFORE SEEKS TO REVIVE THE IMPUGN ED PENALTY. WE NOTICE IN THIS BACKDROP OF FACTS THAT THE SEARCH STATEMENT IN QUESTION MADE BY SHRI ANIL BHOLABHAI PATEL HAD DULY SATISFIED THE MANNER OF HA VING DERIVED UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN QUESTION BASED ON THE RELEVANT SEIZED DOC UMENTS. THIS CLINCHING FINDING OF THE LOWER APPELLATE ORDER HAS GONE UNREB UTTED FROM THE REVENUE SIDE. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE HONBLE JURISDICTIO NAL HIGH COURTS RECENT DECISION IN TAX APPEAL NO.826 OF 2017 PR.CIT VS. M/S. SWAPNA ENTERPRISE DECIDED ON 22.01.2018 HAS SUMMARIZED THE RELEVANT L EGAL POSITION VIS--VIS IMPUGNED PENAL PROVISION 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. 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 IT(SS)A NOS. 88 & 482/AHD/2016 [DCIT VS. M/S. SHIV INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE PARK] A.YS. 2011-12 & 2012-13 - 7 - THEREFORE SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE CIT(A) S ABOVE EXTRACTED FINDINGS DELETING THE IMPUGNED IDENTICAL PENALTY IN BOTH ASS ESSMENT YEARS. 5. THESE TWO REVENUES APPEALS ARE 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