9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 1757 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s. 271AAA - admit, specify and substantiate the undisclosed income - HELD THAT - In vigilant and careful reading and analysis of the questions posed to Shri Jerambhai Patel by the statement recording authority, it is clear that there was no occasion for Shri Jerambhai Patel to state and make averments in the exact format as stipulated and required under clauses (i) (ii) of sub s. (2) of s. 271AAA of the Act and in this scenario and considering the environment in which statement u/s. 132(4) of the Act is recorded it is not practically possible and correct to expect from the assessee, whether educated or uneducated, to specify and to point out the facts complying with the requirement of conditions stipulated in the clauses (i) (ii) of sub s. (2) of s. 271AAA We reach to a logical conclusion that the ld. CIT(A) was right in granting relief to the assessee by following ratio of the decision of Mahendra C. Shah 2008 (2) TMI 32 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT which has been referred by Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in its subsequent judgments in the cases of PCIT v. Emirates Technologies Pvt. ltd. 2017 (8) TMI 387 - DELHI HIGH COURT and PCIT vs. Swapna Enterprises 2018 (2) TMI 57 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of penalty imposed under Section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Compliance with the conditions laid down in Section 271AAA(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Onus of proving the source of unaccounted income. Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Penalty Imposed under Section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 The Revenue appealed against the order of the CIT(A) which deleted the penalty of ?2,00,00,000 imposed under Section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT-DR contended that the CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by ignoring the fact that the assessee did not satisfy the conditions laid down in Section 271AAA(2)(ii). The CIT-DR argued that the onus to admit, specify, and substantiate the undisclosed income and pay tax and interest thereon is on the assessee, not the Assessing Officer (AO). The Tribunal, after hearing both parties, concluded that the assessee had paid the tax along with interest on the undisclosed income, thereby fulfilling the condition under clause (iii) of Section 271AAA(2). The Tribunal cited the case of Shailesh Gopal Mhaske where the immunity was not granted because the tax was not paid, which was not applicable here as the assessee had paid the due taxes. 2. Compliance with the Conditions Laid Down in Section 271AAA(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 The Tribunal examined whether the assessee complied with clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 271AAA(2). The CIT(A) had earlier held that the assessee specified the manner in which the income was derived and substantiated it with seized documents, fulfilling the conditions of Section 271AAA(2). The CIT(A) relied on various court decisions, including the Gujarat High Court's decision in Mahendra C. Shah, which held that unless specific questions are posed by the authorized officer during the search about the manner of earning the income, it will be presumed that the conditions are fulfilled if the income is declared and taxes are paid. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the statement recorded under Section 132(4) by Shri Jerambhai Patel clearly mentioned the manner of earning the undisclosed income, which was substantiated by seized documents. The Tribunal agreed that the environment in which the statement is recorded makes it impractical to expect exact compliance with the format stipulated by the provisions. 3. Onus of Proving the Source of Unaccounted Income The Tribunal noted that the CIT-DR argued that the Income Tax Act does not cast the onus on the AO to establish the source of unaccounted income. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed specified the manner of earning the undisclosed income and substantiated it with the seized documents. The Tribunal referred to the case of Mahendra C. Shah and subsequent judgments, which supported the view that if the income is declared and taxes are paid, the conditions of Section 271AAA(2) are deemed to be fulfilled. Conclusion The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271AAA. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no reason to interfere with it. Consequently, the appeals of the Revenue were dismissed. The Tribunal's decision applied mutatis mutandis to the other two appeals (ITA Nos. 1811 & 1815/Ahd/2014/SRT), as the facts and circumstances were identical. Therefore, all three appeals of the Revenue were dismissed. Order Pronouncement The order was pronounced in the open court on 10th October, 2018.
|
