9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (9) TMI 864 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271AAB(1)(c) - undisclosed income on account of advances - Search proceedings - Whether CIT(A) is justified in holding that the income was found recorded is other documents maintained by the assessee in normal course as per clause (c) of sub section (1) to explanation of Section 271AAB ? - CIT-A deleted penalty - HELD THAT - It is not imperative repeat the facts of the case as the ld. CIT(A) has elaborately discussed the issue in detail by taking the reference of ITAT Judgement in the case of Raja Ram Maheshwari 2019 (1) TMI 1546 - ITAT JAIPUR and thus the ld. CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal of the assessee We concur with the findings of the ld. CIT(A) in the case of the assessee. Thus the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Issues:
1. Deletion of penalty imposed by AO under section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Justification for deleting penalty on undisclosed income of ?3.30 crores. 3. Interpretation of undisclosed income as per Section 271AAB. Issue 1: Deletion of penalty under section 271AAB: The Department filed an appeal against the order of the ld.CIT (A) for the Assessment Year 2014-15, challenging the deletion of penalty of ?62,70,000 imposed by the AO under section 271AAB. The appellant argued for penalty deletion citing lack of specificity in the notice issued by the AO, contending that penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory. The appellant's case was compared to relevant judgments, including the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur in the case of Raja Ram Maheshwari. The appellant's undisclosed income of ?3.3 crores, declared under section 132(4) of the Act, was the subject of penalty imposition. The ld.CIT (A) set aside the penalty, emphasizing that undisclosed investment in land purchase cannot be equated to undisclosed income as per section 271AAB. The Tribunal concurred with the ld.CIT (A)'s decision, supported by the ITAT Jaipur bench's ruling in the case of Raja Ram Maheshwari. Issue 2: Deletion of penalty on undisclosed income: The appellant's undisclosed income of ?3.3 crores, disclosed during a search and seizure operation, was contested for penalty imposition. The seized document revealed advances given for land purchase, treated as undisclosed income by the appellant. The ld.CIT (A) and the Tribunal agreed that the undisclosed investment in land purchase did not qualify as undisclosed income under section 271AAB, warranting the penalty deletion. The Tribunal directed the deletion of penalty on the ?3.3 crores while confirming the penalty on the addition of ?92,770. Issue 3: Interpretation of undisclosed income under Section 271AAB: The Tribunal examined the definition of undisclosed income under section 271AAB, emphasizing the distinction between investment and income. The Tribunal clarified that undisclosed investment in land purchase does not automatically constitute undisclosed income as per the section. The Tribunal referred to the decision in the case of Sandeep Chandak to differentiate the issues related to penalty imposition under section 271AAB and section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal concluded that the penalty levied by the AO was unjustified based on the specific definition of undisclosed income in section 271AAB, supported by various judgments from the ITAT Jaipur bench. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the decision of the ld.CIT (A) to delete the penalty on the undisclosed income of ?3.3 crores while confirming the penalty on the addition of ?92,770. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of undisclosed income under section 271AAB and relevant precedents from the ITAT Jaipur bench.
|
