2016 (7) TMI 506 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty U/s. 271AAA - undisclosed income surrendered by the assesssee during the course of search - Held that - Finding considerable cogency in the assessee s counsel contention that during the search, cash of ₹ 35,00,000/- was seized from the locker of the assessee which was surrendered as income for the current financial year 2008-09 as income earned from advance received against sale of property. The assessee declared this sum as undisclosed income in the return filed for assessment year 2009-10 which was accepted by the AO while passing the order and returned income is accepted as it is which means that AO is satisfied about the manner and its substantiation during assessment and hence assessee should not be charged penalty u/s. 271AAA of the I.T. Act. As the assessee filed his income tax return for the assessment year 2009-10 within the time stipulated under section 139 and has disclosed therein all the income earned by him during the previous year 2008-09, therefore, there is no question of penalizing the assessee under section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for non disclosure of income. Hence, the penalty levied by the AO and affirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, penalty deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Consideration of evidence and submissions by the Assessing Officer.
3. Compliance with conditions of penalty provisions.
4. Observance of principles of natural justice.
5. Sufficient disclosure of undisclosed income.
6. Jurisdiction and sustainability of penalty imposition.

Analysis:

1. The appellant contested the imposition of a penalty of ?3,50,000 under section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty was based on the Assessing Officer's (AO) conclusion that the appellant failed to provide details regarding the undisclosed income of ?35,00,000 surrendered during a search action. The appellant argued that the income was declared in the return for the assessment year, accepted during assessment, and thus, penalty imposition was unwarranted.

2. The AO's decision to levy the penalty was challenged on the grounds that the appellant had indeed provided explanations and attended proceedings to clarify the source of the undisclosed income. The appellant maintained that the AO's observation of non-disclosure was unfounded as detailed replies were submitted, and the income was declared in the return. The AO's failure to consider the explanations adequately was highlighted as a violation of the principles of natural justice.

3. The appellant contended that all conditions of section 271AAA were met, as the undisclosed income was declared and substantiated during assessment. The appellant's compliance with the provisions was emphasized to argue against the penalty imposition, asserting that the AO's decision was not in line with the factual and legal aspects of the case.

4. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had surrendered the undisclosed income during a search, declared it in the return, and substantiated the source of income during assessment. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument that penalizing for non-disclosure when the return was filed within the stipulated time and all income was disclosed was unjustified. The Tribunal concluded that the penalty imposition was unsustainable in law, leading to the deletion of the ?3,50,000 penalty under section 271AAA.

5. The Tribunal's decision to delete the penalty was based on the assessment of the facts, submissions, and procedural aspects of the case. By emphasizing the appellant's compliance with disclosure requirements and the AO's failure to consider the explanations provided, the Tribunal overturned the penalty imposition, ruling in favor of the appellant. The judgment highlighted the importance of due process and adherence to legal provisions in penalty determinations under the Income Tax Act.

6. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Assessee, setting aside the penalty of ?3,50,000 imposed under section 271AAA. The judgment underscored the significance of fair assessment procedures, proper consideration of evidence, and adherence to legal principles in penalty determinations, ensuring justice and compliance with the law.