2016 (10) TMI 934 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds CIT(A) decision to delete penalty under Sec 271AAA for AY 2009-10.

The DCIT 22 (3), Mumbai Versus Shri. Vijay Ravji Gajra

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty imposed under Section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2009-10. It was ... Penalty u/s 271AAA - undisclosed cash credit - Held that- We concur with the Ld. CIT(A)’s observation that the undisclosed income of ₹ 3.55 crores representing various items as cited therein are liable to be considered in terms of the provisions of Explanation (a)(ii) to Section 271AAA of the Act. As per the material on record and as observed by the Ld. CIT(A), we find that it is an undisputed fact that the assessee has, during the course of search proceedings, apart from declaring the undisclosed income; has also given the detailed break up of the same, item wise and giving the proximate manner in which and source the same have been earned/derived from. This is therefore, in our view, substantiated. The above facts find mention by the A.O in the order of assessment at 2 to 4 thereof, inter alia giving the dates on which these cash credit are credited in the books of accounts. It is not a requirements on the part of the assessee that all evidences in respect of the undisclosed income have to be produced to substantiate the source of income; a proximate nature of acquisition would be sufficient. We too, agree with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that the A.O has not identified which of the conditions have been violated by the assessee, that invite the levy of penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act in the case on hand; Nor has any reason has been rendered for the levy thereof - Decided in favour of assessee Issues Involved:1. Deletion of penalty levied under Section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Compliance with the conditions specified under Section 271AAA(2) by the assessee.3. Validity of the Assessing Officer's (AO) penalty order.4. Reference to judicial precedents and their applicability.Detailed Analysis:1. Deletion of Penalty Levied Under Section 271AAA:The appeal by the revenue challenges the order of the CIT (Appeals)-33, Mumbai dated 15/07/2014, which deleted the penalty of Rs. 35,58,183/- levied under Section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2009-10. The penalty was initially imposed following a search and seizure action under Section 132 of the Act, during which the assessee disclosed additional income.2. Compliance with the Conditions Specified Under Section 271AAA(2):The AO initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271AAA, requiring the assessee to show cause why the penalty should not be levied. The AO levied the penalty on the grounds that the assessee failed to 'Specify' and 'Substantiate' the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived. However, the CIT(A) found that the assessee had indeed declared the details of income and the manner thereof during the search proceedings. The CIT(A) noted that the AO did not identify which specific conditions were not complied with by the assessee as per Section 271AAA.3. Validity of the Assessing Officer's Penalty Order:The CIT(A) observed that the AO's penalty order lacked specific reasons for the levy of the penalty and seemed to have been passed mechanically. The CIT(A) held that the disclosure made by the assessee during the search was accepted by the AO and detailed in the assessment order. The CIT(A) followed the decision of the Co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Kanakia Spaces Pvt. Ltd., which held that the requirement to substantiate the source of income does not mean producing all evidence, but rather specifying the proximate nature of acquisition.4. Reference to Judicial Precedents and Their Applicability:The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessee had fulfilled the conditions under Section 271AAA(2). The Tribunal referenced the case of Kanakia Spaces Pvt. Ltd., which emphasized that the requirement is to specify the manner of earning income, not to provide minute details with evidence. The Tribunal also cited the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT vs. Mahendra C. Shah, which held that substantial compliance with the declaration and payment of tax suffices for immunity from penalty.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty did not require interference. The revenue's appeal was dismissed, affirming that the assessee had complied with the conditions under Section 271AAA, and the AO's penalty order lacked sufficient grounds and specificity.Order:The revenue's appeal for the assessment year 2009-10 is dismissed. The order was pronounced in the open court on 5th October 2016.