ITAT quashes Pr. CIT order under Section 263, citing lack of jurisdiction post-final certificate

The ITAT quashed the order passed under Section 263 by the Pr. CIT, holding that the Pr. CIT lacked jurisdiction after the issuance of the final certificate under the Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016. The ITAT also found that the penalty proceedings were initiated unlawfully and that the AO had not specified the sub-clause of Section 271AAB, rendering the penalty order void. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Jurisdiction of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) after the issuance of a final certificate under the Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016.
3. Determination of whether the penalty under Section 271AAB should be levied at 10% or 30%.
4. Adequacy of the assessee's substantiation of undisclosed income.
5. Correct application of the provisions of Section 271AAB by the Assessing Officer (AO).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Order Passed Under Section 263:
The main issue in the appeal is the validity of the order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT). The Pr. CIT held that the Assessing Officer (AO) erred in levying a penalty at 10% instead of the mandated 30% under Section 271AAB. The Pr. CIT argued that the AO's decision was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT, which states that an incorrect application of law satisfies the requirement of an order being erroneous.

2. Jurisdiction of the Pr. CIT After Issuance of Final Certificate Under Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016:
The assessee argued that the Pr. CIT lacked jurisdiction to pass the order under Section 263 after the issuance of a final certificate under the Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016. The certificate, issued by the Pr. CIT (Central), Jaipur, granted immunity from prosecution and stated that the matter could not be reopened in any other proceeding under the Income Tax Act or any other law. The ITAT agreed with the assessee, noting that the certificate had not been withdrawn and thus the issue regarding the levy of penalty had attained finality.

3. Determination of Penalty Under Section 271AAB:
The Pr. CIT directed the AO to levy a penalty at 30% instead of 10%, as initially imposed. The ITAT found that the AO had not specified the sub-clause of Section 271AAB under which the penalty was levied. The ITAT held that without a clear finding from the Pr. CIT based on documents and statements recorded during the search, the provisions of Section 271AAB(1)(c) could not be applied. The ITAT emphasized that the Pr. CIT could not reach a conclusion without a clear and final finding on the issue.

4. Adequacy of Assessee's Substantiation of Undisclosed Income:
The Pr. CIT's order was based on the AO's observation that the assessee failed to substantiate the undisclosed income during the assessment proceedings. However, the ITAT found no such finding in the assessment order. The ITAT noted that the assessee was not afforded an opportunity to substantiate the income during the assessment proceedings, and no questions were posed to the assessee regarding the substantiation of income during the statement recorded under Section 132(4).

5. Correct Application of Provisions of Section 271AAB:
The ITAT observed that the AO had levied the penalty at 10%, indicating that the penalty was levied under Section 271AAB(1)(a). The ITAT found that the AO did not specify the sub-clause of Section 271AAB in the notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271. The ITAT held that the AO's failure to specify the sub-clause rendered the penalty order unlawful. The ITAT also noted that the Pr. CIT's direction to levy a penalty at 30% was not justified without a clear finding on the applicability of Section 271AAB(1)(c).

Conclusion:
The ITAT quashed the order passed under Section 263 by the Pr. CIT, holding that the Pr. CIT lacked jurisdiction after the issuance of the final certificate under the Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016. The ITAT also found that the penalty proceedings were initiated unlawfully and that the AO had not specified the sub-clause of Section 271AAB, rendering the penalty order void. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

---