2018 (3) TMI 1168 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271AAA - CIT(A) observed that the penalty ought to have been imposed u/s 271AAA as the search was conducted on 31.01.2011, which date falls within the period 01.06.2007 to 30.06.2012, being the period prescribed u/s 271AAA - Held that - Going through the definition specified previous year in juxtaposition to section 271AAA(1), it becomes clear that penalty at the rate of 10% of the undisclosed income is to be imposed only in respect of specified previous year. CIT(A) simply went by the dates given in sub-section (1) of section 271AAA without examining specified previous year which is crucial for determination of the applicability or otherwise of section 271AAA. Under these circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for examining the case afresh in the light of the Explanation (b) to section 271AAA. - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
1. Penalty under section 271AAA vs. section 271(1)(c) for undisclosed income.
2. Interpretation of 'specified previous year' under section 271AAA.
3. Applicability of section 271AAA in the given case.

Analysis:
1. The case involved three appeals by the Revenue relating to AYs 2006-07 to 2008-09, where the common issue was the imposition of a penalty on additional surrendered income. The Assessing Officer levied a penalty under section 271(1)(c) for the undisclosed income, but the ld. CIT(A) opined that penalty under section 271AAA should have been imposed instead, reducing the penalty amount. The Revenue contested this reduction in penalty.

2. Section 271AAA(1) allows for a penalty of 10% of undisclosed income if the search was initiated between specific dates. The term 'specified previous year' is crucial in determining the applicability of this section. The Tribunal noted that the ld. CIT(A) did not consider this term adequately while deciding on the penalty reduction. A precedent from the Chennai Bench highlighted the importance of 'specified previous year' in distinguishing between section 271AAA and section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal set aside the decision and remitted the matter for reevaluation in light of the definition of 'specified previous year.'

3. Considering the similarity in facts for the other two assessment years, the Tribunal decided to set aside the orders for those years as well and instructed the CIT(A) to reconsider the penalty imposition in line with the Tribunal's interpretation. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for a fresh examination based on the correct legal provisions.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the correct application of penalty provisions under section 271AAA and the significance of defining the 'specified previous year' for determining the appropriate penalty for undisclosed income. The decision highlighted the necessity of a thorough analysis in line with legal definitions and precedents to ensure the accurate imposition of penalties in tax matters.