Anubhav Sharma ORDER
Anubhav Sharma, Member (J)
1. The appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 31.07.2014 of CIT(A)-XXXI, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. 'FAA') arising out of an appeal before it against the order dated 27.09.2013 passed u/s 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') by the DCIT, Circle-11, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as the Ld. AO).
2. Assessee is in appeal raising following grounds :
"1. The order passed is illegal, invalid, and bad in law.
2. The Penalty levied at Rs. 42,65,000/- is unjustified and unwarranted.
3. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the penalty shall not be levied ordinarily where the assessee is not at fault or guilty of misconduct. The Ld. AO and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred by levying penalty on the appellant without any finding/proving anything on record in relation to the additional income. Hence the penalty levied is uncalled and without any basis.
4. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT (A) and the Ld Assessing Officer erred by considering that the appellant fails to fulfill the conditions of section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Whereas the appellant has truly disclosed all the facts in the course of search whatever being asked by the oath administrator. Hence, penalty levied is against the provisions of the law and shall be deleted.
5. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel v. State of Orissa MANU/SC/0418/1969 : (1972) 83 ITR 26 still hold good and applicable to the appellant's case. Hence the penalty levied is unjustified.
6. The above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another.
7. The assessee craves leave to add, amend, alter or forgo any of the grounds at the time of or before the hearing. "
3. Heard and perused the record.
4. None has appeared for the assessee while the notices issued have been received back to the report that 'assessee has left'. Similar report was received earlier. In fact what transpires from record is that the appeal was earlier disposed of by order dated 03.10.2017 for non-appearance of the assessee/ appellant thereafter on filing in the miscellaneous application the order was recalled. The Miscellaneous application filed for the assessee mentioned the fact that the company was ordered to be wound up by the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Accordingly arguments of Ld. DR were heard who supported the findings of Ld. Tax Authorities below.
5. In the light of aforesaid it can be observed that the impugned order of penalty has been passed u/s 271AAA of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) has observed on the basis of record that no statement u/s 132(4) was recorded while the Ld. AO had mentioned in the penalty order in para 5 that assessee has not furnished any explanation in respect of surrendered income u/s 132(4) amounting to Rs. 4,26,50,000/- either at the time of assessment proceedings or during the course of penalty proceedings.
6. It is relevant to reproduce here Section 271AAA of the Act of convenient determination of the grounds;
'271AAA. Penalty where search has been initiated.-(1) The Assessing Officer may, notwithstanding anything 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 1st day of June........