Asst. CIT Vs. Shailesh Gopal Mhaske (ITAT Pune)
In cases where the assessee claims the immunity from levy of penalty under section 271AAA of the Act, sub- section (2) provides that three conditions to be fulfilled but in actual fact there are four steps are to be undertaken before grant of any immunity under section 271AAA of the Act, which are as under: —
(a) Assessee in the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act admits the undisclosed income;
(b) Assessee satisfies the manner in which the income has been derived;
(c) Assessee substantiate the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived; and
(d) pays the taxes together with interest, if any, in respect of undisclosed income.
In this case the assessee in the course of search, while statement under section 132(4), was recorded had admitted the undisclosed income. However, he failed to specify the manner in which the income was derived. He did not give any explanation about the investments and the sources from where he had made the said investments. In the absence of assessee having satisfied the manner in which the income was derived and also specifying the manner, clause (i)(part) and clause (ii) under sub-section (2) of section 271AAA were not fulfilled. The assessee having defaulted to make the payment of taxes which were due, could not be said to have fulfilled the conditions laid down in clause (iii) of sub-section (2) of section 271AAA.
