2021 (10) TMI 406 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal overturns penalty for taxpayer complying with Income-tax Act requirements

M/s Ronak Gems Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2 (4), Mumbai

The Tribunal found that the assessee complied with all conditions under section 271AAA(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, including disclosing the ... Penalty order u/s 271AAA - disclosure of additions income pursuant to search u/s 132 - whether the assessee has complied with all the three conditions as prescribed under the provision of section 271AAA? - HELD THAT:- The three conditions mentioned in the provision of section 271AAA are (i) that the assessee should admit the undisclosed income in a statement made u/s 132(4) of the Act. (ii) The assessee specify the manner in which such income has been derived and substantiate the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived. (iii) The assessee should pay the taxes together with interest in respect of undisclosed income. In the present case the assessee has disclosed the entire source of income and manner of undisclosed income earned - assessee has also paid the taxes and the details - The assessee has admitted the undisclosed income and voluntarily declared the same under section 132 (4) of the Act on the basis of accounting records consisting of its income from all the sources. It means that the assessee has complied with all the conditions mentioned in section 271AAA(2) of the Act and once the assessee has complied with all the conditions the assessee should not be called upon to pay a penalty under this section. As assessee has complied with the conditions of section 271AAA(2) of the Act, the assessee is not liable for penalty under this provision. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. Issues Involved:1. Validity of penalty order under section 271AAA of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Confirmation of penalty levied by the Assessing Officer.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Penalty Order under Section 271AAA:The primary issue in this appeal is the validity of the penalty order issued under section 271AAA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee argued that the penalty order dated 26.12.2016 was 'bad and invalid in the eyes of law.' The facts of the case reveal that a survey and subsequent search were conducted on the business premises of the assessee, leading to the disclosure of an additional income of Rs. 2.25 crore for the Financial Year 2008-09. This disclosure included various discrepancies such as excess cash found, unaccounted investments, and renovation expenses. The Assessing Officer (AO) assessed this additional income under section 143(3) and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAA, concluding that the assessee did not specify or substantiate the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived. Consequently, a penalty of Rs. 22.50 lakh was levied.2. Confirmation of Penalty Levied by the Assessing Officer:The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's action, stating that the assessee failed to disclose the mode of application and manner of earning the undisclosed income and did not pay taxes on it. The Tribunal, however, examined the compliance with the conditions prescribed under section 271AAA(2), which include:- Admission of undisclosed income in a statement under section 132(4).- Specification and substantiation of the manner in which the income was derived.- Payment of taxes together with interest on the undisclosed income.The Tribunal noted that the assessee disclosed the entire source and manner of the undisclosed income and paid the taxes as required. The Tribunal referenced the statement made by the assessee during the search and the subsequent letter to the investigation wing, which provided a detailed bifurcation of the disclosed income. The Tribunal also considered the business activities of the assessee, including trading in diamonds, gold bars, and property, and the explanation provided for the discrepancies found during the search.The Tribunal highlighted that the assessee made a voluntary declaration under section 132(4) and paid the appropriate tax, believing that this would protect them from penalty proceedings. The Tribunal found that the assessee had complied with all the conditions under section 271AAA(2) and should not be penalized. The Tribunal also cited several judicial precedents, including the case of DCIT vs. Salasar Stock Broking Ltd., which supported the assessee's position that penalty should not be levied if the conditions under section 271AAA(2) are met.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had fulfilled all the conditions under section 271AAA(2) and, therefore, should not be liable for the penalty. The orders of the lower authorities were reversed, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced in the open court on 30.09.2021.