2018 (6) TMI 73 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s. 271AAA - unexplained cash payments offered as additional income - no specific query raised by the Authorised Officer while recording statement u/s. 132(4) - Held that - As during the assessment proceedings, the assessee has stated that the undisclosed income in dispute has been earned from transactions in land / properties and from other speculative activities and for this claim, papers and correspondence was also found and seized Since no specific query was raised at the time of recording statement u/s. 132(4) and during the assessment proceedings, however, the manner was substantiated by filing written submission and also referring relevant documents relating to undisclosed income, which were found and seized. CIT(A) has rightly held that assessee is not at fault for substantiating the manner for earning the undisclosed income, in the absence of any specific query raised by the Authorised Officer while recording statement u/s. 132(4). The assessee has substantiated the manner, during the assessment proceedings, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the penalty in dispute. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Cancellation of penalty under section 271AAA on unexplained cash payments.
2. Fulfillment of conditions under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for penalty imposition.
3. Validity of the order of the CIT(A) in terms of law and facts.

Issue 1: Cancellation of Penalty under Section 271AAA:
The case involved a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, where an undisclosed income of ?30 crores was disclosed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) imposed a penalty under section 271AAA as the manner in which the income was derived was not substantiated. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty after considering the submissions, penalty order, assessment order, and statements recorded under section 132(4). The Ld. CIT(A) concluded that no specific query was raised during the statement recording or assessment proceedings regarding the manner of earning the undisclosed income. The AR of the assessee argued that the manner was substantiated through written submissions and relevant documents, leading to the penalty cancellation.

Issue 2: Fulfillment of Conditions for Penalty Imposition:
The Revenue contended that the penalty under section 271AAA should be upheld as the assessee failed to specify the manner of deriving the undisclosed income during the search and assessment proceedings. The Revenue relied on case laws to support their argument. In response, the AR of the assessee referred to the computation of income and detailed disclosure of ?30 crores in the assessment year, emphasizing that the Ld. CIT(A) correctly considered all submissions and evidence to cancel the penalty. The AR cited various case laws to support the argument that the penalty was rightly deleted.

Issue 3: Validity of CIT(A) Order:
The Tribunal heard arguments from both parties and reviewed the assessment order, penalty order, and the CIT(A) order. The Tribunal noted that the assessee substantiated the manner of earning the undisclosed income during the assessment proceedings, even though no specific query was raised during the statement recording. The Tribunal referenced relevant case laws cited by both parties and concluded that the Ld. CIT(A) rightly deleted the penalty based on the facts and circumstances of the case. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A) order and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) to cancel the penalty under section 271AAA, considering the lack of specific queries during the assessment proceedings and the substantiation of the undisclosed income manner by the assessee. The case highlighted the importance of providing sufficient evidence and explanations in tax matters to avoid penalties.