2017 (3) TMI 1783 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271AAB - no search in the case of the assessee firm - HELD THAT - Opening words are penalty where search has been initiated a perusal of the provisions under Section 271AAB also talks of the assessee declaring any undisclosed income in the course of the search in the statement under section 132(4). Admittedly in the present case, that is in the case of the assessee firm in appeal there has been no search. Search admittedly is on the residence of one of the partner of the assessee firm. A perusal of the order of the learned CIT(A) also clearly shows that the learned CIT(A) has cancelled the penalty on the ground that there was no search in the case of the assessee firm. The revenue has not been able to point out as to how this finding of the learned CIT(A) is erroneous. This being so the finding of the learned CIT(A) on this issue stands confirmed. - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal filed by revenue against CIT (A) order for Assessment Year 2013-14 and 2014-15.
2. Levy of penalty under section 271AAB on assessee firm.
3. Interpretation of provisions under Section 271AAB in relation to search initiation.
4. Dispute over search location and applicability of penalty.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to two appeals filed by the revenue against the CIT (A) order for Assessment Year 2013-14 and 2014-15. The revenue contested the deletion of penalty under Section 271AAB imposed on the assessee firm by the CIT (A).

2. The dispute centered around the interpretation of provisions under Section 271AAB, which specifies penalties where a search has been initiated. The revenue argued that the penalty was justified as cash found during a search at the residence of a partner of the assessee firm was linked to the firm. However, the CIT (A) held that since there was no search at the premises of the assessee firm, the penalty could not be levied under Section 271AAB.

3. The Tribunal analyzed Section 271AAB, noting that penalties are applicable when a search is initiated, and the assessee declares undisclosed income during the search. In this case, the search was conducted at the partner's residence, not the firm's premises. The CIT (A) correctly canceled the penalty based on this distinction, as highlighted in the provisions of the Act.

4. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, emphasizing that the revenue failed to demonstrate any error in the CIT (A)'s finding. Since there was no search at the assessee firm's location and the penalty conditions under Section 271AAB were not met, the penalty imposition was deemed unjustified. Consequently, the appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed, affirming the CIT (A)'s order.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented, legal interpretation, and the final decision rendered by the Tribunal, providing a comprehensive overview of the case.