2024 (10) TMI 1279 - HC - Income Tax

Levy of penalty u/s 271AAA - requirement of substantiating the manner in which undisclosed was derived by the Assessee Company - HELD THAT - As we read Section 271AAA(2) of the Act, it becomes manifest that an escape from the imposition of a penalty is dependent not only on a disclosure of income having been made in the course of a statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act but the assessee also standing obligated to specify the manner in which that income had been derived and thereafter substantiate the said disclosures. As we read the order of the ITAT it is manifest that the assessee/appellant failed to meet the aforesaid requirements. We consequently find no merit in the instant appeal. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Levy of penalty under Section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) regarding the levy of penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act. The appellant raised several questions for consideration by the High Court. The first issue was whether the ITAT erred in its interpretation of Section 271AAA by requiring the substantiation of undisclosed income during the statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act. The second issue questioned the sustainability of the ITAT's order, arguing that the appellant fulfilled other conditions under Section 271AAA. The third issue raised was the failure of the High Court to acknowledge that if a specific query was not raised during the search regarding the substantiation of undisclosed income, the penalty under Section 271AAA could not be levied. The final issue questioned the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in imposing the penalty without recording satisfaction in the assessment order.

The CIT(A) allowed the appeal on the grounds that the appellant was not queried regarding the specification and substantiation of the undisclosed income during the search and seizure operation. The ITAT, however, held that the appellant failed to meet the requirements of Section 271AAA(2) by not specifying and substantiating the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived during the search. The ITAT emphasized that the appellant's disclosure was made to avoid litigation, not to meet the conditions for penalty exemption under Section 271AAA(2).

The High Court analyzed Section 271AAA(2) and concluded that the appellant did not fulfill the requirements for penalty exemption. The Court found that the appellant failed to specify and substantiate the undisclosed income as mandated by the Act. Therefore, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the ITAT's decision regarding the levy of penalty under Section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act.