SHRI AESHWARYA JAIN,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAB is not mandatory and requires the surrendered income to fall within the definition of 'undisclosed income'. The seized documents, being an electrical plan, did not inherently reveal any undisclosed income or expenditure.
What were the facts?
During a search, loose papers related to electrical work for a residential house were found. The assessee surrendered Rs. 10.00 lacs based on these documents, which were considered an undisclosed income by the AO. A penalty was levied under Section 271AAB.
What were the issues?
Whether a surrender made during a search, based on documents like an electrical plan, constitutes 'undisclosed income' for the purpose of levying penalty under Section 271AAB, and if the penalty is mandatory or discretionary.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 271AAB,Section 132,Section 132(4),Section 69,Section 115BBE,Section 139(1),Section 153B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory2,590 citing359 ITR 565 · 2013 · HC · Read judgment
- Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT621 citing227 ITR 172 · 1997 · SC
- Pr. CIT v. Sandeep Chandak58 citing405 ITR 648 · 2018 · HC
- Sandeep Chandak & Ors. v. CIT49 citing55 ITR (Trib) 209 · 2017 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCH ‘A’, JAIPUR
Before: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, JM & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1129/JP/2019
Order pronounced in the open court on 07 /01/2020.
Sd/- Sd/- ¼ foØe flag ;kno ½ ¼fot; iky jko½ (Vikram Singh Yadav) (Vijay Pal Rao) ys[kk lnL;@ Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 07/01/ 2020 *Mishra आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Aeshwarya Jain, Kota 1. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The DCIT, Central Circle,Kota 3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy ) @ CIT(A), vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT, 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No.1129/JP/2019) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@ Aेेपेजंदज. त्महपेजतंत
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Shri Ram Das Sonkia, Jaipur vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurJaipur11 Apr 2019Allowed
Also relies on Sandeep Chandak & Ors. v. CIT and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAB is not sustainable if the income was already recorded in 'other documents' maintained in the normal course, as it would not fall under the definition of 'undisclose...
- Shri Krishna Yadav, Jaipur vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurJaipur26 Mar 2019Allowed
Also relies on Sandeep Chandak & Ors. v. CIT and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAB is not mandatory but discretionary, requiring consideration of facts and merits. Following earlier decisions, the penalty was deleted.
- Shri Manoj Moondhra, Jaipur vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurJaipur22 Mar 2019Allowed
Also relies on Sandeep Chandak & Ors. v. CIT and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but discretionary, to be imposed on merits after considering the facts and circumstances. The Tribunal deleted the penalty levied under section 271...
- Shri Mukesh Moondhra, Jaipur vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurJaipur21 Mar 2019Allowed
Also relies on Sandeep Chandak & Ors. v. CIT and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but discretionary, to be imposed on merits. Following previous decisions, the penalty was deleted.
- Anju Jain, Lr Shri Sushil Jain, Indore… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…Indore21 Mar 2024Allowed
Also relies on Sandeep Chandak & Ors. v. CIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that a mere surrender of income during a search does not constitute 'undisclosed income' as defined under Section 271AAB unless it is represented by specific items like money, bullion, or entries in boo...
More judgments on Section 271AAB
- M/S Amrit Cement Limited, Opposite Horse… vs DCIT, Central Cir 4(1), Kolkata, Aayakar…ITA 1564/KOL/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Amrit Cement Limited, Opposite Horse Shoe… vs DCIT, Central Cir 4(1), Kolkata, Aayakar…ITA 1559/KOL/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- M/S Amrit Cement Limited, Opposite Horse… vs DCIT, Central Cir 4(1), Kolkata, Aayakar…ITA 1558/KOL/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- M/S Amrit Cement Limited, Opposite Horse… vs DCIT, Central Cir 4(1), Kolkata, Aayakar…ITA 1557/KOL/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- M/S Amrit Cement Limited, Opposite Horse… vs DCIT, Central Cir 4(1), Kolkata, Aayakar…ITA 1556/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
