2020 (3) TMI 1412 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s.271AAB - undisclosed income - disclosure was on account of inflated expenses - HELD THAT - Lower authorities failed to establish that the assessee had disclosed the income with reference to any specific loose papers / assets etc. AO had failed to substantiate that the disclosure made u/s 132(4) was on the basis of any incriminating material. Therefore, the requirement that there must be undisclosed income in terms of Explanation (c) to Sec. 271AAB was not fulfilled. We find that a total disclosure of Rs.10.51 Crores was made with respect to various entities including assessee as well as Bharatkumar Parikh besides other entities. In the case of assessee, the disclosure was on account of inflated expenses. However, no incriminating material was found during search operations and the undisclosed income was not represented by any money, bullion, Jewellery or other valuable article or thing or any entry in the books of accounts. None of the entries in the books was found to be false and the disclosure was voluntary. Therefore, the same would not fall within the term undisclosed income as defined in Explanation-c(ii) to Sec.271AAB. Hence, the factual matrix do not convince us to confirm the impugned penalties. By deleting the same, we allow both the appeals.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeals against the confirmation of penalty u/s.271AAB for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15.

Analysis:
1. The appeals contested the penalty imposed under section 271AAB for the Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The penalty amounts were Rs.20 Lacs for AY 2013-14 and Rs.15 Lacs for AY 2014-15.

2. The Assessee's Authorized Representative referred to a decision by a co-ordinate bench in a similar case where the penalty under section 271AAB was deleted. The representative argued that the issue in the current case was similar and should be decided in favor of the Assessee. The Revenue did not provide any substantial arguments against this claim.

3. The assessee had disclosed Rs.200 Lacs for AY 2013-14 and Rs.150 Lacs for AY 2014-15 during search proceedings due to inflated expenses. The penalties under section 271AAB were imposed based on these disclosures, which were later confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) and appealed.

4. Upon reviewing the decision of the co-ordinate bench, it was noted that the penalty was deleted in a similar case as the authorities failed to establish that the disclosed income was based on any incriminating material. The requirement for undisclosed income as per Explanation (c) to Sec. 271AAB was not met.

5. A total disclosure of Rs.10.51 Crores was made involving various entities. In the case of the assessee, the disclosure was related to inflated expenses. However, no incriminating material was found during the search, and the undisclosed income was not linked to any specific assets or entries in the books of accounts. As there was no false entry and the disclosure was voluntary, it did not fall within the definition of undisclosed income under Explanation-c(ii) to Sec.271AAB. Therefore, the penalties were not justified, leading to the allowance of both appeals.

6. The appeals were allowed based on the above analysis, and the penalties under section 271AAB were deleted for both Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15.