Section 271AAA penalty cannot be imposed solely based on surrender of additional income during search operations

ITAT Chandigarh held that penalty under section 271AAA cannot be levied merely because the assessee surrendered additional income during search operations. The tribunal ruled that the AO must establish that undisclosed income falls within the statutory definition based on tangible verifiable material found during search. Despite CIT(A) correctly finding no specific discrepancy was pointed out and the surrender was made only to cover potential discrepancies, CIT(A) erroneously confirmed the penalty. The tribunal emphasized that the onus is on the AO to satisfy conditions before imposing penalty, not on the assessee to prove immunity. The penalty was deleted and the assessee's appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of penalty levied under Section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Consideration of submissions filed by the assessee.
3. Determination of whether the surrendered income falls under the definition of "undisclosed income" as per Section 271AAA.
4. Onus of proving the manner in which undisclosed income was derived.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Confirmation of Penalty Levied Under Section 271AAA:
The primary issue is whether the penalty of Rs. 17,50,000/- levied by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 271AAA was correctly confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The penalty was imposed because the assessee allegedly failed to specify the manner in which the additional undisclosed income was derived, a mandatory requirement under Section 271AAA.

2. Consideration of Submissions Filed by the Assessee:
The assessee argued that the submissions made during the hearing were not properly considered by the AO and CIT(A). The AO initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271AAA, asserting that the assessee did not adequately explain the source of the additional undisclosed income with documentary evidence. The CIT(A) upheld the AO’s decision, dismissing the appeal due to an inordinate delay initially, but later, upon remand, sustained the penalty after considering the submissions again.

3. Determination of Whether the Surrendered Income Falls Under the Definition of "Undisclosed Income":
The assessee contended that the surrendered income of Rs. 1.75 crores does not fall within the definition of "undisclosed income" as per the explanation to Section 271AAA. The CIT(A) acknowledged that the surrendered income did not meet the definition of "undisclosed income" but still confirmed the penalty. The Tribunal noted that the essential condition for levying the penalty is the presence of "undisclosed income" as defined, which the AO failed to substantiate with tangible verifiable material found during the search.

4. Onus of Proving the Manner in Which Undisclosed Income Was Derived:
The Tribunal emphasized that the onus is on the AO to record a specific finding that the undisclosed income, as defined, was found based on tangible verifiable material during the search. The assessee’s partners had stated that the additional income was to cover discrepancies in the documents and books seized during the search. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)’s observation that no specific discrepancy was pointed out by the AO, and the mere fact that a surrender was made to cover potential discrepancies does not satisfy the definition of "undisclosed income."

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the AO did not fulfill the necessary conditions for levying the penalty under Section 271AAA. It held that the penalty provisions must be strictly construed, and in this case, the AO did not provide sufficient evidence to justify the penalty. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the penalty.

Order:
The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the penalty under Section 271AAA was deleted. The order was pronounced in the open court on 28/06/2024.

---