Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax Jaipur-Ii, Jaipur v. Shri Nirmal Kumar Agarwal, 304, 3[Rd] Floor, Ridhi Sidhi Apartment, Ahinsa Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH ATJAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 155 / 2017 Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax Jaipur-II, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus Shri Nirmal Kumar Agarwal, 304, 3[rd] Floor, Ridhi Sidhi Apartment, Ahinsa Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. K.D. Mathur for Mr. R.B. Mathur _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERIHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Judgment 06/07/2017 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged thejudgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal hasdismissed the appeal of the Department confirming the order of the CIT (A). 2.The counsel for the appellant has framed the following substantial questions of law: “I)Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case and in law, the ITAT has erred indeleting the penalty imposed u/s. 271AAAamounting to Rs.18107047/-. II) Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case and in law, the ITAT is perverse om sofar as it has failed to appreciate the fact that thepenalty was imposed for not fulfilling the conditionas provided in section 271AAA (2) (ii) as theassessee did not substantiate the manner in whichthe undisclosed income was derived.” 3.However, the Tribunal while considering the matter on page 14 observed as under: “There is no dispute with regard to the propositionthat penalty u/s 271AAA is not leviable if theassessee in the course of search in a statementunder sub section (4) of section 132 admits theundisclosed income and specifies the manner inwhich the said income has been derived,substantiated the manner in which the undisclosedincome is derived and pays the tax together withinterest in respect of the undisclosed income. Thefirst requirement of immunity under Section271AAA is that the assessee admits theundisclosed income in a statement recorded u/s132(4) of the Act and specifies the manner inwhich the income has been derived. We find thatthe assessee in response to question no.19 to thestatement recorded under Section 132(4) hasadmitted the undisclosed income and stated thatthe income derived from the business of financingthe brokerage. Therefore, the first condition issatisfied. Second requirement is to substantiatethe manner in which the undisclosed income wasderived. The Id. CIT (A) has reported that thesurrender made by the assessee was on accountof undisclosed business of financing andbrokerage. Therefore, this observation of the Id.CIT (A) is not disputed by the revenue. Therefore,the second requirement is also met by thestatement of the assessee. The third requirementis of law that the assessee pays tax along withinterest on the undisclosed income. The revenuehas not disputed the payment of tax and interestthereon. Therefore, in view of the abovediscussion, we do not find any reason to interferein the ordeer of Id. CIT (A), same is herebyupheld. The ground of the revenue is dismissed.” 4.In view of non-fulfilment of third condition where penal clause is there, the interpretation put forth by the Tribunal is justand proper. No interference is called for. 5.No substantial question of law arises in this appeal and theappeal stands dismissed. (INDERJEET SINGH),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. //bm gandhi 32