9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 1139 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271AAA - specification of undisclosed income - Held that - In the order levying penalty u/s. 271AAA the AO levied penalty for concealment of income - there is no reference of undisclosed income either in the assessment order or the order levying penalty - thus manner in which the entire penalty proceedings are conducted there was ambiguity and vagueness in the mind of AO with regard to the charge and the provisions under which penalty is to be levied - hence the notice levying penalty is also ambiguous and bad in law - we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order deleting penalty u/s. 271AAA - appeal of revenue is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of penalty levied under Section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Definition and interpretation of "undisclosed income" under Section 271AAA. 3. Procedural correctness in the initiation and imposition of penalty. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Penalty Levied under Section 271AAA: The Department appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Central, Pune, which deleted the penalty levied under Section 271AAA. The penalty was initially imposed by the Assessing Officer following a search action under Section 132, where the assessee disclosed additional income of ?83,33,375/-. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that the threshold conditions for invoking Section 271AAA were not met, leading to the deletion of the penalty. 2. Definition and Interpretation of "Undisclosed Income" under Section 271AAA: The Department argued that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the additional income did not fall under the definition of "undisclosed income" as per Section 271AAA. The Department emphasized that the assets discovered during the search, which led to the disclosure, should be considered "undisclosed income." The Department relied on various precedents, including the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Prakash Steelage Ltd., to support their claim that the disclosed income was indeed "undisclosed income" under the Act. 3. Procedural Correctness in the Initiation and Imposition of Penalty: The assessee contended that the penalty proceedings were flawed due to inconsistency and ambiguity in the notice and the order levying the penalty. The assessee pointed out that the Assessing Officer recorded satisfaction for levy of penalty for "concealment of income," which is not the same as "undisclosed income" under Section 271AAA. The assessee argued that the notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 271AAA was defective as it did not specify the charge for levy of penalty, thereby making the entire penalty proceedings invalid. The assessee supported their arguments with several judicial precedents, including Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows. Tribunal's Findings: The Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), agreeing that the penalty under Section 271AAA was not justified. It was noted that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction for levying the penalty was based on "concealment of income" rather than "undisclosed income," leading to ambiguity and vagueness in the penalty proceedings. The Tribunal emphasized that the definition of "undisclosed income" under Section 271AAA was not properly addressed by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal concluded that the notice for penalty was ambiguous and thus invalid, supporting the deletion of the penalty. Conclusion: The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, and the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleting the penalty levied under Section 271AAA was upheld. The Tribunal found procedural lapses and ambiguity in the penalty proceedings, leading to the conclusion that the penalty was not warranted.
|
