9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 680 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271AAA - search operation u/s 132 - whether the manner in which the undisclosed income derived was specified and substantiated by the assessee to avoid the application of penal provision u/s 271AAA of the Act? - Held that - In view of facts of the present case where from it is evident that during the course of search proceedings the authorized officer of the department had not raised any specific query regarding the manner in which the undisclosed income has been derived and on the contrary the assessee has tried to explain the earning of the undisclosed income in question in its reply during the course of recording of his statement u/s 132(4) of the Act and thereafter. We thus respectfully following the ratio of above cited decisions of CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel (2005 (4) TMI 47 - ALLAHABAD High Court ) and CIT vs Mahendra C. Shah (2008 (2) TMI 32 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) to hold that in absence of query raised by the authorized officer during the course of recording of statement u/s 132 (4) about the manner in which the undisclosed income has been derived and about its substantiation, the AO was not justified in imposing penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act specially when the offered undisclosed income has been accepted and due tax thereon has been paid by the assessee. We thus while setting aside orders of the authorities below in this regard direct the AO to delete the penalty of ₹ 12,50,00,000/- levied u/s 271AAA of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of penalty under Section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Satisfaction of conditions for exemption from penalty under Section 271AAA. 3. Specification and substantiation of the manner in which undisclosed income was derived. Detailed Analysis: 1. Imposition of Penalty under Section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The primary issue revolves around the imposition of a penalty amounting to Rs. 12,50,00,000/- under Section 271AAA following a search operation conducted under Section 132 at the assessee's premises on 3.3.2010. During this search, the assessee surrendered Rs. 125 crore as undisclosed income, which was declared in the return for the assessment year 2010-11, and the due taxes were paid. The Assessing Officer (AO) imposed a penalty of 10% of the undisclosed income, which was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. 2. Satisfaction of Conditions for Exemption from Penalty under Section 271AAA: The assessee argued that all conditions for exemption from penalty under Section 271AAA were satisfied. These conditions include: - Admission of undisclosed income in a statement recorded under Section 132(4). - Specification and substantiation of the manner in which the income was derived. - Payment of taxes and interest on the undisclosed income. The assessee contended that the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived was specified and substantiated through documents seized during the search. These documents pertained to forward/speculative and property transactions. The AO, however, rejected this explanation and imposed the penalty. 3. Specification and Substantiation of the Manner in which Undisclosed Income was Derived: The Tribunal examined whether the assessee had indeed specified and substantiated the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived. The assessee's statement under Section 132(4) and subsequent letters to the authorities explained that the income was derived from forward/speculative and property transactions. The Tribunal noted that the authorized officer did not ask specific questions regarding the manner in which the income was derived during the search. The relevant questions and answers indicated that the assessee had provided details about the sources of the undisclosed income. The Tribunal also considered various judicial precedents, including decisions from the Supreme Court and High Courts, which emphasized that if the assessee admits the undisclosed income and specifies the manner in which it was derived, and pays the due taxes, the penalty under Section 271AAA should not be imposed. Specifically, the Tribunal referred to the decisions in: - ACIT vs. GEBILAL Kanhiyalal (HUF) - CIT vs. Mahendra C. Shah - CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel - Mothers Pride Education Personna Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT - Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma & Others vs. DCIT - Sulochanadevi A. Agarwal, Suran vs. ITO - Shri Pramod Kumar Jain vs. DCIT and others - DCIT vs. Shri Inderchand Surajmal Brothers Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had indeed specified and substantiated the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived during the search and in subsequent communications. Given that the authorized officer did not raise specific queries regarding the manner of deriving the income during the search, and considering the judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in imposing the penalty under Section 271AAA. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the authorities below and directed the AO to delete the penalty of Rs. 12,50,00,000/-. The appeal was allowed. Order Pronouncement: The order was pronounced in the open court on 24th June 2013.
|
