9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (7) TMI 574 - HC - Income TaxPenalty u/s. 271AAA - assessment u/s 1543A pursuant to search - ITAT restricted part penalty - Held that - We find that both the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal have rendered a finding of fact that an amount of ₹ 13 lakhs (Rupees thirteen lakhs) and ₹ 23,276/( Rupees Twenty three thousand two hundred seventy six only) alone have not been explained so as to satisfy Section 271AAA(2) of the Act save the above both have held that the other portions of statement made under Section 132(4) stated satisfied. In fact, the Assessing Officer while imposing the penalty has not given any reasons in support of his conclusion that the respondent-assessee does not satisfy Section 271AAA(2) of the Act so as to be excluded from the provisions of Section 271AAA(1) of the Act. Nothing has been shown to us as to why the impugned order of the Tribunal is perverse. The view taken by the Tribunal is a possible view on the facts as found. - No substantial questions of law - Decided against revenue
Issues:
Challenge to order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding penalty under Section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2008-09. Analysis: The case involved a challenge to the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) regarding the penalty imposed under Section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2008-09. The Revenue raised two questions of law for consideration. Firstly, whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the CIT(Appeals) directing the Assessing Officer to restrict the penalty to a lesser amount than originally imposed. Secondly, whether the impugned order of the Tribunal was perverse on the facts and liable to be struck down. The search proceedings under Section 132 of the Act were initiated on the respondent-assessee in July 2007, leading to the declaration of undisclosed income and subsequent assessment under Sections 143(3) and 153A of the Act. The penalty under Section 271AAA was imposed by the Assessing Officer, which was later partially allowed by the CIT(A). The respondent-assessee accepted the order to the extent that Section 271AAA(1) of the Act was applicable, concerning unexplained diamonds and short offering of income. However, the Revenue appealed to the Tribunal, which upheld the findings of the CIT(A) and concluded that the respondent had not fully explained certain amounts, satisfying Section 271AAA(2) of the Act. The High Court noted that both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal had found that specific amounts remained unexplained by the respondent-assessee in order to satisfy Section 271AAA(2) of the Act. The Court observed that the Assessing Officer had not provided reasons supporting the conclusion that the respondent did not meet the requirements of Section 271AAA(2) to be excluded from the penalty provisions. It was held that the Tribunal's decision was a possible view based on the facts presented, and no perversity was found in the impugned order. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the proposed questions did not give rise to substantial questions of law. No costs were awarded in the matter.
|
