2015 (8) TMI 1388 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA - assessee has not specified the manner and also could not substantiate the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived - Held that - It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has disclosed the amount of ₹ 3,85,00,000/- under the head business income , i.e. income derived from business of real estate and other business activities, which has been assessed as such by the Assessing Officer. If that is so, then it can be taken as implied substantiation of the manner of deriving of the income, which stands accepted by the Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings. Assessing Officer cannot turn around and say that the manner of deriving of income has not been substantiated. Regarding payment of taxed on such income there is no dispute. if that is so, then it can be taken as implied specification of the manner of earning of income and also the substantiation of the same. This offer of business income has been accepted by the Assessing Officer also. At the stage of recording of statement u/s 132(4) and assessment stage, nowhere the revenue officials have held that it is not from business income or not derived from business. Hence, it cannot be held that the assessee is liable for penalty u/s 271AAA on the facts of the present case - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of penalty levied under section 271AAA.
2. Fulfillment of conditions for claiming immunity from penalty under section 271AAA.
3. Specification and substantiation of the manner in which undisclosed income was derived.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of penalty levied under section 271AAA:
The revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty levied under section 271AAA for the assessment year 2008-09. The CIT(A) had deleted the penalty on the grounds that the assessee had disclosed the undisclosed income as "business income" and paid the taxes thereon, which was accepted by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the penalty was rightly deleted as the assessee had satisfied the conditions under section 271AAA(2).

2. Fulfillment of conditions for claiming immunity from penalty under section 271AAA:
The assessee contended that they had admitted the payment of cash to avoid protracted litigation and disclosed it as part of the income of the year. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had disclosed the amount of Rs. 3.85 crores under the head "business income" and paid taxes on it, which was accepted by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal held that this implied substantiation of the manner in which the income was derived, satisfying the conditions under section 271AAA(2).

3. Specification and substantiation of the manner in which undisclosed income was derived:
The Tribunal discussed the requirement of specifying and substantiating the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived under section 271AAA(2). It referred to various High Court decisions, including the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Radha Kishan Goel and the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Mahendra C Shah, which held that unless the authorized officer specifically asks about the manner in which the income was derived during the statement recorded under section 132(4), it is not expected from the assessee to specify it. The Tribunal concluded that in this case, the authorized officer did not ask the assessee to specify the manner, and the assessee's disclosure of the income as "business income" and its acceptance by the Assessing Officer implied substantiation of the manner.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty under section 271AAA. The Tribunal held that the assessee had satisfied the conditions under section 271AAA(2) by disclosing the income as "business income," paying taxes on it, and the Assessing Officer accepting it as such. The Tribunal emphasized that the requirement of specifying the manner in which the income was derived is satisfied if the authorized officer does not ask specific questions during the statement recorded under section 132(4).