2024 (12) TMI 561 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty under Section 271AAB reduced from 30% to 10% despite unexplained liabilities constituting undisclosed income

DCIT Central Circle Ghaziabad Versus Subhash Tyagi And (Vice-Versa) And DCIT Central Circle Ghaziabad Versus Subhash Tyagi

DCIT Central Circle Ghaziabad Versus Subhash Tyagi And (Vice-Versa) And DCIT Central Circle Ghaziabad Versus Subhash Tyagi - TMI Issues Involved:1. Legality of imposing penalty under Section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act.2. Correctness of the quantum of penalty imposed under Section 271AAB(1).3. Obligation of specifying the limb of Section 271AAB(1) under which penalty is proposed in the show cause notice.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of Imposing Penalty under Section 271AAB:The core issue was whether the penalty under Section 271AAB was legally imposed. During a search operation, incriminating documents were found, revealing fictitious liabilities and bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 52 crore. The assessee admitted these were fictitious liabilities and included this amount in the return of income. The Tribunal held that the presence of undisclosed income was evident from the search findings, and the assessee's admission confirmed this. Thus, the application of Section 271AAB was deemed appropriate. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's argument that there was no undisclosed income, affirming that the entries of unexplained liabilities and expenses met the definition of undisclosed income under Section 271AAB.2. Correctness of the Quantum of Penalty Imposed:The Assessing Officer (AO) initially imposed a penalty at 30% under Section 271AAB(1)(c) on the undisclosed income. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] reduced this to 10% under Section 271AAB(1)(a), citing the assessee's cooperation and payment of taxes. The Revenue challenged this reduction, arguing that the assessee failed to substantiate the manner of deriving the undisclosed income. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) provided insufficient reasoning for reducing the penalty and that merely furnishing a list of creditors did not satisfy the requirements of specifying and substantiating the manner of deriving undisclosed income. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the AO's decision to impose a 30% penalty under clause (c), as the conditions of clause (a) were not met.3. Obligation of Specifying the Limb of Section 271AAB(1) in the Show Cause Notice:The assessee contended that the penalty notice was vague as it did not specify which limb of Section 271AAB(1) was being invoked. The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that unlike Section 271(1)(c), Section 271AAB does not require the AO to form a satisfaction or specify the limb at the initiation stage. The Tribunal emphasized that the penalty under Section 271AAB is automatic upon the detection of undisclosed income during a search, and the AO is not required to specify the limb in the show cause notice. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's additional ground and dismissed it.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and cross-objection filed by the assessee, upholding the legality and quantum of the penalty imposed by the AO under Section 271AAB(1)(c). The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal, restoring the penalty rate to 30% as initially imposed by the AO. The decision underscores the mandatory nature of penalties under Section 271AAB upon the discovery of undisclosed income during searches, and the non-requirement for the AO to specify the penalty limb at the initiation stage.