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>Tribunal upholds penalty for undisclosed income admission</h1> <h3>Sri Venkateswara Reddy Pachhia Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1 (3), Hyderabad.</h3> Sri Venkateswara Reddy Pachhia Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1 (3), Hyderabad. - TMI Issues involved:The appeal challenges the penalty order under section 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on the disclosure of additional income during a search and seizure operation.Issue 1: Confirmation of penalty under section 271AAC(1) by CIT(A)The appellant contested the penalty order passed under section 271AAC, arguing that the disclosure of income during the search did not warrant the penalty. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty, stating that the appellant's admission of income during the search operation was not voluntary, as it was prompted by incriminating material and evidence uncovered during the search.Issue 2: Interpretation of undisclosed income and penalty under section 271AABThe Assessing Officer imposed a penalty under section 271AAB(1A) based on the undisclosed income admitted during the search. The appellant argued that since the income was disclosed and included in the revised return, it should not attract the penalty under section 271AAB(1A). The definition of 'undisclosed income' under section 271AAB was crucial in determining the applicability of the penalty.Judgment:The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the penalty imposed under section 271AAC(1) by the CIT(A). It was held that the appellant's admission of undisclosed income during the search, supported by evidence found, qualified as undisclosed income under section 271AAB. Therefore, the penalty under section 271AAB(1A) was justified, as the disclosed income retained the characteristics of undisclosed income. The Tribunal found no fault in the Assessing Officer's decision to impose the penalty and upheld the CIT(A)'s confirmation of the penalty.Separate Judgment:A separate judgment was not delivered by the judges in this case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
