|CORAM:||Kuldip Singh (JM), N. K. Saini (AM)|
|CATCH WORDS:||concelment Penalty|
|DATE:||May 19, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)|
|DATE:||May 28, 2016 (Date of publication)|
|FILE:||Click here to download the file in pdf format|
|S. 271(1)(c) vs. 271AAA: Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on income disclosed in a search instead of u/s 271AAA is not sustainable|
(i) It is not in dispute that the assessee during the search and seizure proceedings categorically admitted that the undisclosed income of Rs.36,02,828/- has been accrued to him along with his three brothers in their individual capacity by way of trading in various commodities and real estates and all these facts got duly corroborated from the seized material.
(ii) When aforesaid undisputed facts are examined in the light of the amended provisions contained under sub-section (2) and (3) of section 271AAA, the penalty in this case, if at all leviable, it should have been levied under section 271AAA (1) and not u/s 271(1)(c) as has categorically been provided in sub-section (3) of section 271AAA. Intention of the legislative in incorporating the provisions contained u/s 271AA effective during the period 1st June, 2007 to 1st July, 2012 is to provide general amnesty in search and seizure cases, and the case of the assessee undisputedly falls u/s 271AAA and cannot be dealt with u/s 271(1)(c) by any stretch of imagination even.
(iii) So, we are of the considered view that the very initiation of the penalty proceedings against the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) are vitiated in view of the amended provisions of law applicable effective from 1.6.2007 till 1.7.2012, as the additional income to the tune of Rs.36,80,520/- was disclosed by the assessee on the basis of search operation conducted on 10.02.2009. So, without going into the merits of the case, we are of the considered view that initiation of penalty proceedings as well as penalty orders and impugned order passed by the ld. CIT (A) are not sustainable in the eyes of law.