2016 (10) TMI 836 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) - there was search operation in the year 2010 and undisclosed income was assessed under Section 153A - Held that - This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the penalty, if any, can be levied only under Section 271AAA of the Act. In other words, the undisclosed income computed by the Assessing Officer squarely falls in subclause (i) of 271AAA of the Act. Therefore, in view of sub-section (3) of Section 271AAA of the Act, there cannot be any levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In view of the specific prohibition under Section 271AAA(3) of the Act, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer cannot levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) ought to have deleted the entire penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. In view of the above, this Tribunal is unable to uphold the orders of the lower authority. Accordingly, the orders of the Assessing Officer, as confirmed by the CIT(Appeals), are set aside and the entire penalty levied by the Assessing Officer is deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Discrepancies in income disclosures and valuations.
3. Validity of penalty levied by the Assessing Officer.
4. Applicability of penalty provisions under Section 271AAA of the Act.

Issue 1: Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The case involved appeals by both the assessee and the Revenue against the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. The dispute arose regarding the penalty imposition due to various additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. counsel for the assessee argued against the penalty, claiming no concealment of income. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative supported the penalty imposition citing discrepancies in disclosures and valuations. The CIT(Appeals) had confirmed the penalty on some additions while deleting it on others, leading to conflicting views.

Issue 2: Discrepancies in income disclosures and valuations:
The discrepancies in income disclosures and valuations were a key aspect of the case. The Ld. counsel for the assessee presented arguments related to additions made by the Assessing Officer, including lease advance, long term capital gains, and opening cash balance. The counsel contested the Assessing Officer's basis for these additions, emphasizing differences in valuations and interpretations. The Ld. Departmental Representative, however, supported the Assessing Officer's actions, highlighting inconsistencies in the assessee's disclosures and supporting documents.

Issue 3: Validity of penalty levied by the Assessing Officer:
The validity of the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer was a central point of contention. The Ld. Departmental Representative defended the penalty imposition on various grounds, including lack of supporting documents and discrepancies in disclosures. The CIT(Appeals) had upheld the penalty on certain additions while deleting it on others, leading to a mixed outcome. The Tribunal reviewed the arguments from both sides and assessed the appropriateness of the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer.

Issue 4: Applicability of penalty provisions under Section 271AAA of the Act:
A crucial aspect of the judgment was the applicability of penalty provisions under Section 271AAA of the Act. The Tribunal observed that the undisclosed income assessed under Section 153A of the Act fell within the purview of Section 271AAA, not Section 271(1)(c). Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty could not be levied under Section 271(1)(c) due to the specific prohibition under Section 271AAA(3) of the Act. As a result, the Tribunal decided to delete the entire penalty levied by the Assessing Officer, emphasizing the correct application of penalty provisions.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, setting aside the orders of the lower authorities and deleting the entire penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. The judgment highlighted the importance of correctly applying penalty provisions and considering the specific provisions of the Income-tax Act in penalty assessments.