Tribunal cancels penalty, prevents double taxation on unaccounted cash & jewelry.

The Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal regarding the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, as the return was filed within the due date, directing the deletion of the penalty. Additionally, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal concerning the addition of unaccounted cash and jewelry found during the search, as these amounts had already been taxed by the Settlement Commission, preventing double taxation. The Court pronounced the order on 20/04/2022 in Ahmedabad.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Addition of unaccounted cash and jewelry found during the search.

Issue 1: Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961

The solitary issue raised by the assessee is whether the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the penalty levied by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The facts reveal that the assessee, an individual, was subject to a search under section 132, leading to the issuance of a notice under section 153A. The assessee filed returns under sections 153A and 139(4) on the same date, declaring the same income. The AO treated the return under section 139(4) as void and levied a penalty, asserting that the income was disclosed due to the search and subsequent notice, thus constituting concealment of income.

The assessee contended before the learned CIT-A that the return was filed within the permissible time under section 139(4), and the same income was declared in both returns, which was accepted in the assessment proceedings. The learned CIT-A, however, upheld the penalty, referencing explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c), which deems income declared post-search as concealed if no return was filed before the search.

Upon appeal, the Tribunal considered the provisions of explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c), noting that the term "due date" includes the extended date under section 139(4). Since the assessee filed the return within this extended period, it was deemed filed within the due date. The Tribunal referred to a similar case (ITO vs. Gope M. Rochlani), concluding that the penalty could not be sustained as the return was filed within the due date. Thus, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the penalty, allowing the assessee's appeal.

Issue 2: Addition of unaccounted cash and jewelry found during the search

The interconnected issue raised by the Revenue concerns the deletion of additions made by the AO for unaccounted cash and jewelry found during the search. The AO had added Rs. 1,82,69,800 and Rs. 14,79,250 for unaccounted cash and jewelry, respectively.

The learned CIT-A deleted these additions, noting that the amounts were included in the additional income declared before the Settlement Commission, which granted capitalization of the unexplained cash and jewelry. The CIT-A emphasized that retaining these additions would result in double taxation, which is impermissible under the law.

The Revenue appealed, but the Tribunal upheld the CIT-A's decision. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT-A's order, as the additions had already been taxed by the Settlement Commission, and retaining them would lead to double taxation. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

Conclusion:

In the combined results, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the Assessee regarding the penalty under section 271(1)(c) and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue concerning the addition of unaccounted cash and jewelry. The order was pronounced in the Court on 20/04/2022 at Ahmedabad.

---