Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal overturns penalties in IT Act case due to defective notices and discretionary penalty provision</h1> <h3>Shri Gopal Das Sonkia Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur.</h3> Shri Gopal Das Sonkia Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271AAB of the IT Act.2. Levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the IT Act.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Initiation of Penalty Proceedings:The assessee challenged the validity of the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271AAB, arguing that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer (AO) did not specify the default as per clause (a) to (c) of section 271AAB(1) of the IT Act. The Tribunal noted that the AO had issued show cause notices without specifying under which clause of section 271AAB(1) the penalty was being imposed. The Tribunal emphasized that the principles of natural justice require the assessee to know the specific grounds they need to address. The Tribunal referred to various judicial precedents, including CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, which held that vague notices do not satisfy legal requirements. The Tribunal concluded that the initiation of penalty proceedings was not valid due to the defective notices, leading to the quashing of the consequential penalty order.2. Levy of Penalty under Section 271AAB:The Tribunal examined whether the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is mandatory or discretionary. It referred to previous decisions, including the Visakhapatnam Bench of the Tribunal in ACIT vs. Marvel Associates, which held that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but discretionary. The AO must issue a show cause notice and consider the assessee's explanation before deciding on the penalty. The Tribunal reiterated that the AO must determine whether the disclosed income qualifies as 'undisclosed income' per the definition in section 271AAB.Analysis of Specific Penalty Instances:a. Advances for Land:The Tribunal noted that the seized documents contained entries for advances for land, but there was no evidence of the actual transactions or the existence of corresponding assets. The Tribunal held that vague entries alone do not constitute undisclosed income. It emphasized the need for the AO to conduct inquiries to ascertain the particulars of the transactions and the persons involved. Without such inquiries, the entries could not be considered undisclosed income, leading to the deletion of the penalty.b. Excess Cash:The Tribunal considered the explanation provided by the assessee regarding the source of the cash found during the search. The assessee claimed that part of the cash was recorded in the books of account and the remaining amount represented past savings of family members. The Tribunal accepted the explanation for a portion of the cash and noted that the AO had not adequately refuted the assessee's claims. Consequently, the penalty related to the excess cash was deleted.c. Excess Jewellery:The Tribunal observed that the jewellery found during the search belonged to the family members and was not acquired solely by the assessee. It emphasized that the jewellery was likely acquired over time and included inherited items. The Tribunal criticized the department for not investigating the timing and source of the jewellery acquisition. It concluded that the jewellery could not be treated as undisclosed income for the specified previous year, leading to the deletion of the penalty.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the initiation of penalty proceedings was invalid due to defective notices and that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB was not mandatory but discretionary. The AO failed to establish that the disclosed income qualified as undisclosed income, resulting in the deletion of the penalties imposed.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found