9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (5) TMI 281 - AT - Income TaxPenalty under section 271AAA - voluntary disclosure - Held that - The offer of undisclosed income of ₹ 2 crores was made voluntarily by the assessee without any detection by the Department and, accordingly, the argument of the learned Departmental representative that but for the search, this income would not have been offered does not hold any water and deserves to be dismissed. It is already well settled that though the income is not disclosed in the return filed under section 139(1) of the Act but duly disclosed in the petition filed under section 132(4) of the Act followed by the filing of return in response to section 153A of the Act and taxes paid thereon, then the assessee would not be invited with the levy of penalty. We find that if the argument of the learned Departmental representative that since the asses see had not offered the said income in the return filed under section 139(1) of the Act thereby levy of penalty is in order is to be accepted, then it would make the immunity provisions contemplated under section 271AAA(2) of the Act redundant. The Legislature in its wisdom had given a thoughtful consideration on the facts and circumstances under which the assessee would not be invited with the levy of penalty pursuant to the search subject to fulfilment of certain conditions stipulated in the said section. Hence, in view of the above, we hold that the levy of penalty is not automatic and the assessee is clearly entitled for immunity from levy of penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the penalty under section 271AAA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, could be levied in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Whether the additional income disclosed under section 132(4) qualifies as undisclosed income within the meaning of section 271AAA. 3. Whether the conditions stipulated in clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 271AAA were fulfilled by the assessee. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Penalty under Section 271AAA: The Revenue's appeal contested the deletion of the penalty under section 271AAA by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The penalty was initially levied by the Assessing Officer on the grounds that the additional income disclosed by the assessee was not included in the return filed under section 139(1) but only in the return filed under section 153A. The Assessing Officer also argued that the disclosure was made due to the search operation and that the assessee failed to substantiate the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived. 2. Qualification of Additional Income as Undisclosed Income: The assessee argued that the additional income disclosed under section 132(4) was not undisclosed income as defined in section 271AAA. The disclosure was made to avoid long litigation and to buy peace, as the assessee could not instantly produce all required documentation. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepted this argument, noting that the additional income was voluntarily disclosed and not based on any seized material. 3. Fulfillment of Conditions under Section 271AAA(2): The assessee contended that all conditions under section 271AAA(2) were met, including the voluntary nature of the disclosure and payment of taxes on the additional income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) agreed, noting that the assessee had included the additional income in the return filed under section 153A and paid the necessary taxes. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's argument that the penalty was justified because the income was not disclosed in the return filed under section 139(1) was not valid, as the disclosure was made after the return was filed. Tribunal's Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), stating that the penalty under section 271AAA was not automatic and that the assessee was entitled to immunity from the penalty. The Tribunal emphasized that the disclosure was voluntary and not based on incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal also referenced judicial precedents supporting the view that voluntary disclosure followed by payment of taxes should not attract a penalty. Supporting Judicial Precedents: The Tribunal cited several cases, including the Supreme Court's decision in Sudarshan Silks and Sarees v. CIT, which supported the notion that voluntary disclosure and cooperation with tax authorities could provide immunity from penalties. Other Tribunal decisions, such as those from the Cuttack and Nagpur Benches, were also referenced to support the assessee's case. Final Order: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and confirmed that the assessee was entitled to immunity from the penalty under section 271AAA(2). The penalty levied by the Assessing Officer was thus canceled. Result: The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the assessee was granted immunity from the penalty under section 271AAA.
|
