TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Penalty upheld for undisclosed income due to stock discrepancies under Income Tax Act</h1> <h3>M/s Royal Lifestyle Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Bathinda Versus The D.C.I.T., Central Circle-1, Ludhiana.</h3> M/s Royal Lifestyle Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Bathinda Versus The D.C.I.T., Central Circle-1, Ludhiana. - TMI Issues:Levy of penalty u/s 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on surrendered undisclosed income.Detailed Analysis:1. Background and Penalty Initiation:The appeal was filed against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upholding the penalty under section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee had admitted and surrendered undisclosed income during a search operation. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAB based on the surrendered income.2. Assessee's Contentions:The assessee contended that the surrendered income was disclosed in the return, taxes were paid, and the manner of earning was specified, hence no penalty should be levied. The argument was that the penalty was not automatic.3. Revenue's Arguments:The Revenue argued that the surrender was due to discrepancies in stock and other transactions found during the search, qualifying as undisclosed income. The Commissioner upheld the penalty, citing the explanation to section 271AAB(3) and the conditions fulfilled by the assessee.4. Legal Provisions and ITAT Decision:The ITAT analyzed section 271AAB, which deals with penalties in search-initiated cases. Undisclosed income is defined under Explanation(c) of the section. The penalty ranges from 10% to 60% based on conditions specified in sub-clauses (a) to (c) of subsection (1) of the section.5. Confirmation of Penalty:The ITAT upheld the penalty, considering the surrendered income as undisclosed income due to stock discrepancies. The decision was supported by a previous ITAT case where a similar surrender on stock discrepancies led to a penalty under section 271AAB. The penalty amount of Rs. 28,30,000 was confirmed by the ITAT.6. Conclusion:The ITAT dismissed the assessee's appeal and upheld the penalty under section 271AAB. The decision was based on the definition of undisclosed income and the conditions specified in the Act. The penalty was deemed applicable due to the nature of the surrendered income as undisclosed, specifically related to stock discrepancies.This detailed analysis outlines the key arguments, legal provisions, and the ITAT's decision regarding the levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on surrendered undisclosed income.
TaxTMI 