Validity of Penalty Proceedings Upheld: Typo Error Not Fatal

The High Court upheld the validity of penalty proceedings under Section 271AAB, ruling that the correction of the reference from Section 271AAA to Section 271AAB through a corrigendum was a typographical error and did not invalidate the proceedings. The Court emphasized that the appellant had the opportunity to defend against the penalty, and the lack of a separate notice under Section 271AAB did not vitiate the proceedings. The Court also clarified that prior sanction for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271AAB was obtained, and the penalty order was approved by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax. The appeal was rejected, affirming the penalty of Rs. 30,00,000 under Section 271AAB.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of penalty under Section 271AAB without a separate notice under Section 274 read with Section 271AAB.
2. Whether the corrigendum issued to correct the reference from Section 271AAA to Section 271AAB was valid.
3. Whether prior sanction was required for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271AAB.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Penalty under Section 271AAB without Separate Notice:
The appellant contended that no separate notice under Section 271AAB was issued, arguing that the penalty proceedings were vitiated. The Tribunal and the High Court noted that the Assessing Officer initially issued a notice under Section 271AAA and later issued a corrigendum correcting the reference to Section 271AAB. The High Court held that this correction was a typographical error and did not invalidate the proceedings. The Court emphasized that the appellant had full opportunity to defend against the penalty, and the proceedings were not vitiated by the lack of a separate notice under Section 271AAB.

2. Validity of Corrigendum Issued to Correct Reference:
The appellant argued that the corrigendum issued to correct the reference from Section 271AAA to Section 271AAB was not valid and that a fresh notice should have been issued. The Tribunal observed that both Sections 271AAA and 271AAB concern penalty proceedings related to undisclosed income detected during a search, with the primary difference being the quantification of the penalty. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's view that the correction was a technical defect and did not impinge on the jurisdiction or the substantive basis of the penalty proceedings. The Court held that the corrigendum was a valid rectification under Section 292B of the Act.

3. Requirement of Prior Sanction for Initiating Penalty Proceedings:
The appellant contended that the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271AAB required prior sanction, which was not obtained. The High Court clarified that the inquiry was whether the initial notice, though titled under Section 271AAA, was proceeded by sanction. The Court reviewed the documents and found that the penalty order was approved by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, thus satisfying the requirement of sanction. The Court also noted that the legislative framework did not mandate the formation of satisfaction during the assessment proceedings for penalties under Sections 271AAA or 271AAB, unlike Section 271(1)(c). Therefore, the satisfaction could be formed post-assessment, and the corrigendum did not require a fresh notice with prior sanction.

Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that there was no substantial difference between Sections 271AAA and 271AAB, except for the applicable periods. The Court found no error in the Tribunal's decision and held that the penalty proceedings were validly conducted. The appellant's contentions were dismissed, and the appeal was rejected, affirming the penalty of Rs. 30,00,000 under Section 271AAB.

---