2021 (8) TMI 320 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271AAB - assessee was not subjected to search - HELD THAT - No search in the case of present assessee before us and the assessee has admittedly accepted the jewellery in a statement under section 132(4) of the Act pursuant to which notice under section 153C was issued to the assessee. The co-ordinate Benches have taken the view that the penalty under section 271AAB can be levied in the hands of a searched person only. The assessee herein is not subjected to search, meaning thereby, penalty under section 271AAB cannot be levied in the hands of the assessee. Even though, the Assessing Officer has not cited any reason for dropping penalty proceedings, yet the fact remains that the penalty under section 271AAB cannot be levied in the hands of the assessee, as opined by coordinate Benches. Hence, very initiation of revision proceedings is not in accordance with law and the same cannot be sustained. Even otherwise, there is possibility of two views on the issue of levying of penalty under section 271AAB of the Act in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, we quash the revision order passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax. - Decided in favour of assesee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.
2. Justification of penalty proceedings dropped by the Assessing Officer under section 271AAB.
3. Applicability of penalty under section 271AAB in an assessment framed under section 153C of the Act.

Analysis:
1. The Tribunal considered an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal due to the appellant's misunderstanding of the redressal process. The delay was condoned as it was deemed to have a reasonable cause, allowing the appeal to proceed on its merits.

2. The case involved a search and seizure operation revealing discrepancies in the ownership of jewelry, leading to penalty proceedings under section 271AAB. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings but later dropped them after considering the assessee's reply. However, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax found the dropping of penalty proceedings erroneous and issued a notice under section 263, directing the Assessing Officer to reconsider the penalty. The Tribunal ultimately quashed the revision order, stating that penalty under section 271AAB cannot be levied in the absence of a search, as per precedents and statutory provisions.

3. The crux of the issue revolved around the applicability of penalty under section 271AAB in an assessment framed under section 153C of the Act. The Tribunal referred to relevant case laws and concluded that penalty under section 271AAB can only be imposed on a searched person. Since there was no search in the present case, the penalty could not be levied on the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that the initiation of revision proceedings was not in accordance with the law and quashed the revision order accordingly.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, highlighting the incorrectness of the penalty proceedings dropped by the Assessing Officer and the inapplicability of penalty under section 271AAB in the absence of a search, as established by legal precedents and statutory provisions.