2019 (10) TMI 1373 - AT - Income Tax

Levying penalty u/s 271AAA - manner of earning undisclosed income was not substantiated - HELD THAT - The contention raised by the ld. DR for the Revenue that the payment of taxes and interest alleged to have been paid by the assessee within due date need to be verified by the AO is not sustainable on the face of the fact that from the return of income along with computation of income available at pages 1 to 11 of the paper book it is duly proved that the return has been received and perused under Rules and there is a refund of 4, 92, 030/- due to the assessee. We are of the considered view that penalty levied in this case is not sustainable hence ordered to be deleted. However in case Revenue finds that the assessee has not deposited the taxes along with interest due well within time then Revenue has liberty to file the application as per law to seek necessary relief. Consequently appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Penalty u/s 271AAA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Confirming the penalty - Failure to specify and substantiate the manner of earning undisclosed income - Payment of taxes within due date - Adjustment of seized cash towards advance tax liability - Amendment to section 132B - Immunity u/s 271AAA(2)(i) - Due date of filing return - Entitlement for immunity based on timely tax payment.

Analysis:

1. The appellant sought to set aside the penalty levied u/s 271AAA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2010-11. The penalty was imposed based on the voluntary surrender of undisclosed income, including jewellery, cash, and unaccounted property investment. The Assessing Officer (AO) levied a penalty of 10% of the surrendered income as the appellant failed to specify how the undisclosed income was earned.

2. The appellant appealed to the ld. CIT (A), who confirmed the penalty. The main issue was whether the appellant complied with the condition for immunity u/s 271AAA(2)(i) by paying taxes with interest within the due date. The ld. CIT (A) held that the appellant paid taxes beyond the due date, rendering them ineligible for immunity.

3. The appellant argued that the cash seized was adjusted towards the total tax liability, and all taxes were paid before the extended due date of filing the return. The appellant filed the return on 15.10.2010, after the due date was extended due to natural calamities, as per an official order.

4. The AO recorded that the appellant filed the return on 15.10.2010 and accepted that taxes and interest were paid before that date. The computation of income submitted by the appellant showed timely tax payment, with a refund due to the appellant.

5. A similar case was cited where the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that the taxes and interest were paid within the due time. The Tribunal found that the penalty was not sustainable and ordered its deletion, granting relief to the appellant.

6. The Tribunal concluded that the penalty imposed was not justified as the appellant had paid taxes and interest within the due date, as evidenced by the return of income and computation of income. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the deletion of the penalty unless the Revenue could prove otherwise.

7. The judgment highlighted the importance of timely tax payment for claiming immunity under section 271AAA and emphasized the need for proper verification before imposing penalties. The decision provided clarity on the legal requirements and upheld the principle of natural justice in tax penalty cases.