TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be sustained on addition made towards notional house property income for the earlier assessment years; (ii) whether, for the assessment year covered by search proceedings, penalty could be levied under section 271(1)(c) when section 271AAB applied to undisclosed income in a specified previous year.
Issue (i): Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be sustained on addition made towards notional house property income for the earlier assessment years.
Analysis: The additions for the earlier years arose from notional annual letting value of properties reflected in the balance sheet. The notional character of the income was material, as no real rental income had been received. In these circumstances, and following the view that penalty cannot be imposed merely because notional house property income was brought to tax, the penalty could not be sustained.
Conclusion: The penalty under section 271(1)(c) for the earlier assessment years was not sustainable and was quashed in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether, for the assessment year covered by search proceedings, penalty could be levied under section 271(1)(c) when section 271AAB applied to undisclosed income in a specified previous year.
Analysis: For the search year, the applicable provision was section 271AAB, which governs penalty on undisclosed income of a specified previous year and contains a non obstante clause excluding section 271(1)(c) in that field. As no undisclosed income of the kind contemplated by section 271AAB was established, invocation of section 271(1)(c) was impermissible.
Conclusion: The penalty under section 271(1)(c) for the search year was bad in law, void ab initio, and was quashed in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded to the extent that all penalty levies were set aside, with relief granted on both the notional-income issue and the wrong-provision issue for the search year.
Ratio Decidendi: Penalty for concealment cannot be sustained on notional house property income, and where a search case falls within the scope of section 271AAB, section 271(1)(c) stands excluded for the same field of undisclosed income.
TaxTMI 
