9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (2) TMI 131 - HC - Income TaxImposition of Penalty u/s 271 of the Act Held that - When the steps provided in Sub-section (2) of Section 271AAA are observed by Assessee, besides the fact, he shall absolve himself from the liability of penalty under Sub-section (1) of Section 271AAA, he will also legally escape from liability of penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) in respect to undisclosed income vide Sub-section (3) of Section 271AAA Relying upon Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gebilal Kanhailal 2012 (9) TMI 297 - SUPREME COURT - The authorities below have not at all discussed the matter, except of recording their conclusion by reiterating the language of Sub-section (2) of 271AAA of Act, 1961 and saying that the same have not been complied with. It is well established that reasons and conclusions are two different things and reasons must show mental exercise of authorities in arriving at a particular conclusion since revenue have not looked into this aspect of the matter, the matter sent to the ACIT for re-examination Decided in favour of Assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of penalty imposition under Section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Compliance with the conditions under Sub-section (2) of Section 271AAA. 3. Adequacy of reasons provided by the authorities for imposing the penalty. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of Penalty Imposition under Section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The writ petition challenges the order dated 29.6.2011 by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT) imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,46,69,958.40 under Section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the revisional order dated 28.3.2013 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) affirming the ACIT's decision. The petitioner argued that the penalty under Section 271AAA could not be imposed as they had complied with all the requirements under Sub-section (2) of Section 271AAA, which overrides Sub-section (1). The respondent contended that mere compliance with one or two conditions was insufficient if the overall conduct was found to be mischievous. 2. Compliance with the Conditions under Sub-section (2) of Section 271AAA: The petitioner claimed to have met all three conditions under Sub-section (2) of Section 271AAA, including admitting the undisclosed income during the search, specifying the manner in which such income was derived, and paying the tax with interest on the undisclosed income. The ACIT, however, concluded that the petitioner had not substantiated the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived and failed to pay taxes on the total undisclosed income. The court noted that the ACIT's order lacked detailed reasoning and primarily relied on the fact that the revised return was filed after a notice was issued, suggesting a lack of bona fide conduct. 3. Adequacy of Reasons Provided by the Authorities for Imposing the Penalty: The court emphasized the importance of providing detailed reasons for imposing penalties, distinguishing between "reasons" and "conclusions." The ACIT's and CIT's orders were found to be deficient in this regard, as they did not adequately discuss how the petitioner failed to meet the conditions under Sub-section (2) of Section 271AAA. The court cited various judgments underscoring the necessity of reasoned decisions, including Union of India Vs. Mohan Lal Kapoor, Gurdial Singh Fijji Vs. State of Panjab & Ors, and others, which highlight that reasons must reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached. Conclusion: The court quashed the impugned orders dated 29.6.2011 and 28.3.2013 and remanded the matter to the ACIT for re-examination and passing a fresh order in accordance with the law and the observations made. The court stressed the need for the ACIT to provide a detailed analysis of whether the petitioner complied with the conditions under Sub-section (2) of Section 271AAA.
|
