2018 (2) TMI 1778 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s. 271AAA - undisclosed income - Disclosure by key-person of the group for and on behalf of the appellant as sufficient compliance to immunity condition of 271AAA(2)(i)- Held that - As CIT vs. Mukeshbhai Ramanlal Prajapati 2017 (7) TMI 966 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT holds it is incumbent for an authorized officer to put the searched assessee to question about the manner of having derived the relevant undisclosed income. Their lordships are of the view that the burden then shifts on the concerned deponents to substantiate the said manner of having derived the undisclosed income in issue. We sought to know from learned Departmental Representative as to whether the authorized officer had raised manner query in the course of search statement or not. He fails to pinpoint any such question raised in search statement. Learned counsel refers to CIT(A) s order(s) under challenge pages 4 onwards extracting the relevant search statement(s) followed by necessary correspondence with the DDIT-1. Mr. Soparkar s case is that no such specific query on the relevant manner issue came to be raised from the authorized officer. We therefore conclude that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted all the impugned penalties after holding that all these assessees had duly complied with the relevant immunity conditions u/s.271AAA of the Act. The Revenue s identical sole substantive grievance in all these appeals is therefore rejected. - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with immunity conditions under Section 271AAA(2)(i) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Manner and substantiation of earning unaccounted income under Section 271AAA(2)(ii).
3. Penalty on income returned under Section 153A.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Compliance with Immunity Conditions Under Section 271AAA(2)(i):
The CIT(A) held that the disclosure made by the key person of the group on behalf of the appellant was sufficient compliance with the immunity condition under Section 271AAA(2)(i). The key person’s disclosure, followed by appropriate communication to the Investigating Officer and the filing of returns by the respective constituents, was deemed sufficient. The CIT(A) referenced the case of Umesh C Patel, where it was concluded that the appellant had made substantial compliance with the eligibility conditions for immunity. The CIT(A) emphasized that the Assessing Officer (AO) had accepted the incomes returned by the assessees based on the group disclosure without any adverse findings, thereby fulfilling the immunity condition.

2. Manner and Substantiation of Earning Unaccounted Income Under Section 271AAA(2)(ii):
The CIT(A) noted that the terms "stating the manner and substantiating the same" were not defined in Section 271AAA. Relying on precedents such as Mahendra C. Shah and Geeta Prints, it was held that the assessee could not be expected to provide detailed accounts of unaccounted income due to the social environment and conditions during the recording of statements under Section 132(4). The CIT(A) observed that when the disclosure was based on seized documents and the broad source was indicated, it was sufficient compliance with the immunity condition. The AO's acceptance of the disclosed income during assessments without any alteration further supported this compliance.

3. Penalty on Income Returned Under Section 153A:
The CIT(A) also held that penalties under Section 271AAA could not be sustained on the income already disclosed in the returns filed under Section 153A. Citing the case of Kirit Dahyabhai, it was noted that penalties could only be levied on income assessed over and above that returned under Section 153A. Since the penalties in question were on the income already disclosed and returned, they were deemed unsustainable. The CIT(A) referenced the case of Sandeep Navneetlal, which supported the view that penalties could not be levied on undisclosed income already returned post-search.

Conclusion:
The CIT(A) concluded that the assessees had fulfilled the immunity conditions under Section 271AAA(2)(i) and (ii) by making appropriate disclosures, filing returns, and paying due taxes. The AO's insistence on additional details was deemed unnecessary and uncalled for. The CIT(A) found no grounds to sustain the penalties and thus cancelled them. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed as the CIT(A)'s decisions were upheld, confirming that the assessees had complied with the relevant immunity conditions under Section 271AAA of the Act. The judgment was pronounced on February 21, 2018, dismissing all seven appeals filed by the Revenue.