2016 (11) TMI 947 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - provision of penalty - disclosure of income on the basis of the search operation - Held that - The penalty in this case, if at all leviable, it should have been levied under section 271AAA(1) and not under section 271(1)(c) as has categorically been provided in sub-section (3) of section 271AAA. The intention of the Legislature in incorporating the provisions contained under section 271AAA effective during the period June 1, 2007, to July 1, 2012, is to provide general amnesty in search and seizure cases, and the case of the assessee undisputedly falls under section 271AAA and cannot be dealt with under section 271(1)(c) by any stretch of imagination even. So, we are of the considered view that the very initiation of the penalty proceedings against the assessee under section 271(1)(c) are vitiated in view of the amended provisions of law applicable effective from June 1, 2007, till July 1, 2012, as the additional income to the tune of ₹ 36,80,520 was disclosed by the assessee on the basis of the search operation conducted on February 10, 2009. So, without going into the merits of the case, we are of the considered view that the initiation of penalty proceedings as well as the penalty orders and the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) are not sustainable in the eyes of law. Hence, the present appeal is allowed and the penalty imposed in this case is hereby deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
- Appellant challenging penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961
- Applicability of Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c)
- Invocation of amended provisions under sub-section (1) of section 271AAA
- Legality and sustainability of penalty imposed
- Admissibility of additional grounds raised during appellate proceedings

Analysis:

1. The appellant contested the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking to set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2008-09. The grounds of appeal included challenges to the legality, jurisdiction, and excessive nature of the penalty imposed.

2. The appellant initially filed a return of income but later revised it after a search in the Dawat group of cases, disclosing additional income from trading business. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A, as the undisclosed income was found during the search.

3. The appellant argued before the Tribunal that the penalty levied was unsustainable due to the amended provisions of section 271AAA, effective from June 1, 2007. The Tribunal examined whether the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) was legally justifiable in light of the amended provisions of section 271AAA.

4. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's undisclosed income fell within the purview of section 271AAA, which provided for a specific penalty regime for cases falling under its ambit. As the undisclosed income was admitted during the search and seizure proceedings and met the conditions of section 271AAA, the penalty should have been levied under this section, not under section 271(1)(c).

5. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the initiation of penalty proceedings, as well as the penalty orders and the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), were not legally sustainable. The penalty of &8377; 12,24,600 imposed on the appellant was deemed inappropriate under the circumstances and was therefore deleted.

6. The Tribunal allowed the appellant to incorporate additional legal grounds during the appellate proceedings, emphasizing the importance of addressing all legal issues relevant to the case for a comprehensive adjudication.

7. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, highlighting the correct application of the relevant legal provisions and the necessity to adhere to the specific penalty regime outlined in section 271AAA for cases falling within its scope. The penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) was deemed invalid, leading to its deletion in this particular case.