SHRI MUKESH MOONDHRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM :

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 1st January,

2018 of ld. CIT (Appeals)-4, Jaipur arising from the penalty order passed under

section 271AAB and subsequent order passed under section 154 of the I.T. Act

respectively for the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the

following grounds of appeals.

“ 1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the learned Assessing Officer in passing the order dated 30.08.2016 and 18.11.2016 passed under section 271AAB and 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without recording the satisfaction that under which limb the assessee has committed offence for which penalty is leviable.

2 ITA No. 226/JP/2018 Shri Mukesh Moondhra vs. DCIT.

levy of penalty under section 271AAB and subsequent enhancement from 10% to

30% of the undisclosed income by passing an order under section 154/155 of the IT

Act in the case of Shri Manoj Moondhra in ITA Nos. 857/JP/2017 and 225/JP/2018.

The assessee is an individual and derived income from house property and income

from other sources. All other facts recorded are identical and arising from the same search and seizure action dated 26th February, 2014. The only difference is

quantum of undisclosed income and consequently the penalty levied under section

271AAB of the Act. The facts, arguments of both parties and findings recorded by

the Tribunal in the case of Shri Manoj Moondhra in ITA Nos. 857/JP/2017 and

225/JP/2018 vide even date order are as under :-

“4. Before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted that the AO issued show cause notice on 29.02.2016 along with completion of assessment and thereafter a show cause notice dated 09.08.2016 was issued for imposing penalty under section 271AAB. Both the notices were issued in a routine manner without mentioning under which clause of section 271AAB of the Act

3 ITA No. 226/JP/2018 Shri Mukesh Moondhra vs. DCIT.

the assessee is liable for penalty. The ld. A/R has submitted that section 271AAB(1) has three clauses (a) to (c) and each clause of sub-section (1) to sec. 271AAB provides the circumstances and violation attracting the penalty @ 10% or 20% or 30% of undisclosed income of specified previous year. The ld. A/R has pointed out that even in the assessment order the AO has not specified under which clause the penalty is liable to be imposed but the AO has mentioned the penalty proceedings under section 271AAB of the IT Act are being initiated. Thus there is no application of mind at the time of issuing the show cause notice as the show cause notice issued by the AO do not specify the undisclosed income on which the assessee is required to show cause. Even the AO has not given any ground for levy of penalty for which the assessee could put his defence. Thus the ld. A/R has contended that in the absence of specific charge against the assessee, he was not in a position to counter the show cause notice issued by the AO as well as his cogent reply to the show cause notice. Though the AO while passing the impugned order has imposed the penalty as per clause (a) of section 271AAB(1) of the Act, however, no such ground was specified in the show cause notice issued under section 271AAB read with section 274 of the Act. Therefore, the show cause notice was unlawful in view of the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra). The ld. A/R has also relied on the decision of Chennai Bench of the Tribunal dated 5th April, 2018 in the case of DCIT vs. Shri R. Elangovan in ITA No. 1199/CHNY/2017 and submitted that the Tribunal in the said case while considering the validity of show cause notice and initiation of proceedings under section 271AAB and following the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra) as well as the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissing the SLP filed by the revenue in the case of CIT vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows, 242 Taxman 150 (SC) held that the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271AAB of the Act not specifying the ground and clauses for levy of penalty was not valid and consequently the penalty order was set aside. The ld. A/R has also

4 ITA No. 226/JP/2018 Shri Mukesh Moondhra vs. DCIT.

relied on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sheveta Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. in DBIT Appeal No. 534/2008 dated 06.12.2016. Thus the ld. A/R has submitted that the order of imposing penalty under section 271AAB is unlawful and not sustainable in law. The second leg of contention of ld. A/R is that without giving the finding that the income in question is an undisclosed income as per sec. 271AAB and particularly the explanation under section 271AAB defining the term ‘undisclosed income’ the order passed by the AO is a non-speaking illegal order. He has further submitted that no undisclosed income was found during the course of search under section 132 though the notings in the diary was found and seized during the search which contained advances given by the assessee for purchase of land. 5. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that the assessee was very well aware about the default and the nature of income he has disclosed and surrendered during the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the IT Act. The surrender in question was made because the assessee was unable to explain the source of the investment in question. It is a clear case of undisclosed income detected during the course of search and seizure action and, therefore, the surrender made by the assessee itself is self-explanatory to the nature of income surrendered by the assessee. The ld. D/R has contended that the assessee has participated in the penalty proceedings and has not raised any objection or has demanded before the AO about his unawareness of the nature of default attracting the levy of penalty under section 271AAB. It is not the case of the assessee that the disclosure was taken under coercion and further the assessee has offered the said amount to tax in the return of income which rules out the scope of any pressure or coercion by the search team for taking disclosure from the assessee. Thus the objection raised by the assessee that the AO has not specified the clause under section 271AAB(1) of the Act has no merit when the assessee himself has explained the nature of income disclosed and surrendered and also paid the tax on the same. The ld. D/R has submitted that as per the explanatory

5 ITA No. 226/JP/2018 Shri Mukesh Moondhra vs. DCIT.

note of Finance Bill, 2012, the provisions of section 271AAB are mandatory in nature and AO has no discretion but the assessee shall pay the penalty in addition to the tax on the undisclosed income surrendered under section 132(4) of the Act. He has relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 6. The ld. D/R has also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of Principal CIT vs. Sandeep Chandak and Others dated 27th November, 2017 in I.T. Appeal No. 122, 128 and 129 of 2017 and submitted that even otherwise if the show cause notice does not mention the section correctly it will not be invalid as the AO will get the benefit of section 292BB of the Act. The ld. D/R has also relied upon the decision of Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Amit Agarwal, 88 taxmann.com 288. 7. The next contention of the ld. A/R of the assessee is regarding the income disclosed by the assessee does not fall in the ambit of undisclosed income as per the provisions of section 271AAB and consequently no penalty is attracted on such disclosure. The A.O. in para 4 on page 2 of the assessment order has mentioned that the total income declared in the ROI for the specified year includes the undisclosed income of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- which represented the undisclosed income. It is not clarified that why the ld. Assessing Officer has treated the income of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- as undisclosed income. Because the assessee was maintaining a separate diary for the income surrendered during the course of search. The diary was also maintaining as books of accounts. In this diary all the entries are for the current Financial Year i.e. from 01.04.2013 to date of search i.e. 26.02.2014. All the transactions are for the current year which had not been ended before the date of the search or for which the return was already filed. All the transactions are recorded. Nothing adverse was found which suggest that the assessee’s intention was not to disclose the income recorded in the seized documents. Keeping the records/diary in the office premises along with regular books of accounts show that the assessee has no intention to conceal his income. This was a bonafide mistake to not incorporate the income in the regular books of accounts and it does not prove the guilty mind and intention

6 ITA No. 226/JP/2018 Shri Mukesh Moondhra vs. DCIT.

to conceal the income on the part of the assessee. Therefore, without bringing any adverse material on record, no penalty can be levied u/s 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee is an individual and derived income from house property, capital gain and income from other sources during the year under consideration. There was no business income to the assessee so assessee was not required to maintain the books of accounts as per provision of section 44AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, it cannot be said that the income offered by the assessee falls under the category of undisclosed income.

7 ITA No. 226/JP/2018 Shri Mukesh Moondhra vs. DCIT.

“4. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. A search was conducted under section 132 of the IT Act on 30th October, 2014 at the premises of the assessee. The assessee in his statement recorded under section 132(4) has disclosed an income of Rs. 10,02,00,000/- in pursuant to the entries of advances given for purchase of land recorded in the pocket diary which was found and seized during the course of search and seizure action. This is year of search and the financial year would end on 31st March, 2015. However, the assessee disclosed this amount of Rs. 10,02,00,000/- based on the entries in the diary regarding investment in real estate. The due date of filing of return of income under section 139(1) was 30th September, 2015. It is undisputed fact that the assessee is an Individual and was not maintaining regular books of account. Therefore, the transactions recorded in the pocket diary found during the course of search itself would not lead to the presumption that the assessee would not have offered this income to tax if the search is not conducted on 30th October, 2014. Further, the entries in the diary itself do no not represent the income of the assessee during the year under consideration though the assessee was required to explain the source of investment in question and that source would be the income of the assessee. It is most likely that the investment in question was made from the unaccounted income of preceding years. Hence the investment in the real estate itself would not reveal the nature of income and the source of income of the year under consideration. It is a pre-condition for invoking the provisions of section 271AAB that the assessee admitted the undisclosed income in the statement under section

8 ITA No. 226/JP/2018 Shri Mukesh Moondhra vs. DCIT.

132(4). The definition of ‘undisclosed income’ is provided in section 271AAB itself and, therefore, the AO in the proceedings under section 271AAB has to examine all the facts of the case and then arrive to the conclusion that the income disclosed by the assessee falls in the definition of undisclosed income as stipulated in the explanation to said section. The first question arises is whether the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is mandatory and consequential to the disclosure of income by the assessee under section 132(4) or the AO has to take a decision whether the given case has satisfied the requirements for levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the Act. In order to consider this issue, the provisions of section 271AAB are to be analyzed. For ready reference, we quote section 271AAB as under :-

“ 271AAB. (1) The Assessing Officer may, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, direct that, in a case where search has been initiated under section 132 on or after the 1st day of July, 2012 49[but before the date on which the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Bill, 2016 receives the assent of the President50], the assessee shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to tax, if any, payable by him,— (a) a sum computed at the rate of ten per cent of the undisclosed income of the specified previous year, if such assessee— (i) in the course of the search, in a statement under sub-section (4) of section 132, admits the undisclosed income and specifies the manner in which such income has been derived; (ii) substantiates the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived; and (iii) on or before the specified date— (A) pays the tax, together with interest, if any, in respect of the undisclosed income; and (B) furnishes the return of income for the specified previous year declaring such undisclosed income therein; (b) a sum computed at the rate of twenty per cent of the undisclosed income of the specified previous year, if such assessee—

9 ITA No. 226/JP/2018 Shri Mukesh Moondhra vs. DCIT.

(i) in the course of the search, in a statement under sub-section (4) of section 132, does not admit the undisclosed income; and (ii) on or before the specified date— (A) declares such income in the return of income furnished for the specified previous year; and (B) pays the tax, together with interest, if any, in respect of the undisclosed income; (c) a sum 51[computed at the rate of sixty per cent] of the undisclosed income of the specified previous year, if it is not covered by the provisions of clauses (a) and (b). 52[(1A) The Assessing Officer may, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, direct that, in a case where search has been initiated under section 132 on or after the date on which the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Bill, 2016 receives the assent of the President, the assessee shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to tax, if any, payable by him,— (a) a sum computed at the rate of thirty per cent of the undisclosed income of the specified previous year, if the assessee— (i) in the course of the search, in a statement under sub-section (4) of section 132, admits the undisclosed income and specifies the manner in which such income has been derived; (ii) substantiates the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived; and (iii) on or before the specified date— (A) pays the tax, together with interest, if any, in respect of the undisclosed income; and (B) furnishes the return of income for the specified previous year declaring such undisclosed income therein; (b) a sum computed at the rate of sixty per cent of the undisclosed income of the specified previous year, if it is not covered under the provisions of clause (a).]

10 ITA No. 226/JP/2018 Shri Mukesh Moondhra vs. DCIT.

(2) No penalty under the provisions of 53[section 270A or] clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) 52[or sub-section (1A)]. (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "specified date" means the due date of furnishing of return of income under sub- section (1) of section 139 or the date on which the period specified in the notice issued under section 153A for furnishing of return of income expires, as the case may be; (b) "specified previous year" means the previous year— (i) which has ended before the date of search, but the date of furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 for such year has not expired before the date of search and the assessee has not furnished the return of income for the previous year before the date of search; or (ii) in which search was conducted; (c) "undisclosed income" means— (i) any income of the specified previous year represented, either wholly or partly, by any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or any entry in the books of account or other documents or transactions found in the course of a search under section 132, which has— (A) not been recorded on or before the date of search in the books of account or other documents maintained in the normal course relating to such previous year; or the 54[Principal (B) otherwise not been disclosed to Chief or 54[Principal Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner Commissioner or] Commissioner before the date of search; or (ii) any income of the specified previous year represented, either wholly or partly, by any entry in respect of an expense recorded in the books of

11 ITA No. 226/JP/2018 Shri Mukesh Moondhra vs. DCIT.

account or other documents maintained in the normal course relating to the specified previous year which is found to be false and would not have been found to be so had the search not been conducted.]”

The section begins with the stipulation that the AO “may” direct the assessee shall pay by way of penalty if the conditions as prescribed under clauses (a) to (c) are satisfied. As per sub-section (3) of section 271AAB the provisions of section 274 and 275 as far as may be applied in relation to the penalty referred in this section which means that before imposing the penalty under sec. 271AAB, the AO has to issue a show cause notice and give a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Thus the levy of penalty u/s. 271AAB is not automatic but the A.O. has to take a decision to impose the penalty after giving a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. It is statutory requirement that the explanation of the assessee for not fulfilling the conditions as prescribed u/s 271AAB of the Act is required to be considered by the AO and particularly whether the explanation furnished by the assessee is bonafide and non-compliance of the same is due to the reason beyond the control of the assessee. Therefore, the penalty u/s 271AAB is not a consequential act but the AO has to first initiate proceedings by issuing a show cause notice and after considering the explanation and reply of the assessee has to take a decision. This requirement of giving an opportunity of hearing itself makes it clear that the penalty u/s 271AAB is not mandatory but the AO has to take a decision based on the facts and circumstances of the case otherwise there is no requirement of issuing any notice for initiation of proceedings but the levy of penalty would be consequential and only computation of the quantum was to be done by the AO as in the case of levy of interest and fee u/s 234A to E. Even the quantum of penalty leviable u/s 271AAB is also subject to the condition prescribed under clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (1) and the AO has to again give a finding for levy of penalty @ 10% or 20% or 30% of the undisclosed income. Thus the AO is bound to

12 ITA No. 226/JP/2018 Shri Mukesh Moondhra vs. DCIT.

take a decision as to what default is committed by the assessee and which particular clause of section 271AAB(1) is attracted on such default. Further, mere disclosure of income under section 132(4) would not ipso facto par take the character of undisclosed income but the facts of each case are required to be analyzed in objective manner so as to attract the provisions of section 271AAB of the Act. Since it is not automatic but the AO has to give a finding that the case of the assessee falls in the ambit of undisclosed income as defined in Explanation to the said section. Therefore, the provisions of section 271AAB stipulate that the AO may come to the conclusion that the assessee shall pay the penalty. The only mandatory aspect in the provision is the quantum of penalty as specified under clauses (a) to (c) of Sec. 271AAB(1) of the Act as 10% to 30% or more as against the discretion given to the AO as per the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act where the AO has the discretion to levy the penalty from 100% to 300% of the tax sought to be evaded. Thus the AO is duty bound to come to the conclusion that the case of the assessee is fit for levy of penalty under section 271AAB and then only the quantum of penalty being 10% or 20% or 30% has to be determined subject to the explanation of the assessee for the defaults.

13 ITA No. 226/JP/2018 Shri Mukesh Moondhra vs. DCIT.

“ The ld. A.Rs have also challenged that the caption of the notice mentioned only Section 271 and not 271AAB. In this respect, the copy of notice has been produced by the ld. A.R. before me. It is seen that the ld. A.R is correct in observing that the section of penalty has not been correctly mentioned by the AO in the caption. However, the AO will get the benefit of section 292BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 because firstly, the assessee has raised no objection before the AO in this regard. Secondly, last line of the notice clearly mentions section 271AAB. Thirdly, the assessee has given reply to said notice which shows that the assessee fully comprehended the implication of the notice that it is for section 271AAB. The assessee has also challenged that the principles of natural justice has not followed by the AO. The detailed submissions of A.R in this regard has already been reproduced above. The A.R did not produce any evidence to show that he was not given proper opportunity of hearing. It is clear from the penalty order that the AO has given penalty notice and which was also replied by the assessee. Therefore, in my opinion, principle of natural justice has not been violated. Thus in view of above discussion penalty imposed by AO u/s 271AAB of the Act is confirmed.”

Thus it was found by the Hon’ble High Court that the mistake in mentioning the section in the show cause notice is covered under section 292BB and the AO will get the benefit of the same. The said decision will not help the case of the revenue so far as the issue involves the merits of levy of penalty under section 271AAB. As regards the decision of Kolkata Benches of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Amit Agarwal (supra), we find that the said decision was subsequently recalled by the Tribunal and a fresh order dated 14th March, 2018 was passed by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the decision relied upon by the ld. D/R is no more in existence.

14 ITA No. 226/JP/2018 Shri Mukesh Moondhra vs. DCIT.

(a) a sum computed at the rate of ten per cent of the undisclosed income of the specified previous year, if such assessee—

(i) in the course of search, in a statement under sub-section (4) of section 132, admits the undisclosed income and specifies the manner in which such income has been derived.

15 ITA No. 226/JP/2018 Shri Mukesh Moondhra vs. DCIT.

(ii) Substantiates the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived; and

(iii) On or before the specified date— (A) pays the tax, together with interest, if any, in respect of the undisclosed income; and

(B) furnishes the return of income for the specified previous year declaring such undisclosed income therein;

(b) a sum computed at the rate of twenty per cent of the undisclosed income of the specified previous year, if such assessee—

(i) in the course of the search, in a statement under sub-section (4_) of section 132, does not admit the undisclosed income; and

(ii) on or before the specified date— (A) declares such income in the return of income furnished for the specified previous year; and

(B) pays the tax, together with interest, if any, in respect of the undisclosed income; (c) a sum which shall not be less than thirty per cent but which shall not exceed ninety per cent of the undisclosed income of the specified previous year, if it is not covered by the provisions of clauses (a) and (b).

(2) No penalty under the provisions of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1).

Section 158BFA(2): (2) The Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) in the course of any proceedings under this Chapter, may direct that a person shall pay by way of penalty a sum

16 ITA No. 226/JP/2018 Shri Mukesh Moondhra vs. DCIT.

which shall not be less than the amount of tax leviable but which shall not exceed three times the amount of tax so leviable in respect of the undisclosed income determined by the Assessing Officer under clause (c) of section 158BC:

Provided that no order imposing penalty shall be made in respect of a person if— (i) such person has furnished a return under clause (a) of section 158BC; (ii) the tax payable on the basis of such return has been paid or, if the assets seized consist of money, the assessee offers the money so seized to be adjusted against the tax payable.

(iii) Evidence of tax paid is furnished along with the return; and (iv) An appeal is not filed against the assessment of that part of income which is shown in the return:

Provided further that the provisions of the preceding proviso shall not apply where the undisclosed income determined by the Assessing Officer is in excess of the income shown in the return and in such cases the penalty shall be imposed on that portion of undisclosed income determined which is in excess of the amount of undisclosed income shown in the return.

17 ITA No. 226/JP/2018 Shri Mukesh Moondhra vs. DCIT.

evident that the penalty cannot be imposed unless the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity and assessee is being heard. Once the opportunity is given to the assessee, the penalty cannot be mandatory and it is on the basis of the facts and merits placed before the A.O. Once the A.O. is bound by the Act to hear the assessee and to give reasonable opportunity to explain his case, there is no mandatory requirement of imposing penalty, because the opportunity of being heard and reasonable opportunity is not a mere formality but it is to adhere to the principles of natural justice. Hon’ble A.P. High Court in the case of Radhakrishna Vihar in ITTA No.740/2011 while dealing with the penalty u/s 158BFA held that ‘we are of the opinion that while the words shall be liable under sub section (1) of section 158BFA of the Act that are entitled to be mandatory, the words may direct in sub section 2 there of intended to directory’. In other words, while payment of interest is mandatory levy of penalty is discretionary. It is trite position of law that discretion is vested and authority has to be exercised in a reasonable and rational manner depending upon the facts and circumstances of the each case. Plain reading of section 271AAB and 274 of the Act indicates that the imposition of penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act is not mandatory but directory. Accordingly we hold that the penalty u/s 271AAB is not mandatory but to be imposed on merits of the each case.”

Thus the Tribunal has held that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but the AO has the discretion to take a decision and shall be based on judicious decision of the AO. Hence we fortify our view by the above decisions of Tribunal in case of ACIT vs. Marvel Associates.”

This Tribunal has taken a consistent view that the levy of penalty U/s 271AAB of the Act is not mandatory but the AO has discretion to take a decision after arriving to the conclusion that the income disclosed by the assessee in the statement recorded U/s 132(4) of the Act is an undisclosed income in terms of Section 271AAB(1) r.w. explanation defining the undisclosed income. The decision relied by the ld. CIT-DR in case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sandeep Chandak 405 ITR 648 is only on the point of benefit of Section 292BB of the Income Tax Act is available to the AO when the show cause notice issued U/s 274 r.w.s. 271AAB of the Act mentions in its caption only Section 271 and not 271AAB. The Hon’ble High Court

18 ITA No. 226/JP/2018 Shri Mukesh Moondhra vs. DCIT.

after considering the fact that body of the show cause notice and particularly the last line of the notice clearly mentions Section 271AAB of the Act and therefore, the AO will get the benefit of Section 292BB of the I.T. Act. There was no question before the Hon’ble High Court regarding the mandatory or discretionary nature of the levy of penalty U/s 271AAB of the Act and the observations of the Hon’ble High Courts were only in the context the typographical mistake in mentioning the section in the show cause notice. Therefore, the said decision cannot be applied on the issue before us. Accordingly, following the earlier decisions of this Tribunal, we hold that the levy of penalty U/s 271AAB of the Act is not mandatory but the AO has discretion to take a decision about the undisclosed income.

“8. Even otherwise, without restricting ourselves to the validity of show cause notice, we note that section 271AAB of the Act contemplates imposition of penalty pursuant to the disclosure of undisclosed income in the statement recorded under section 132(4) and, therefore, the levy of penalty under this section does not depend on the addition made during the assessment proceedings. Hence the penalty proceedings under section 271AAB are completely independent of the enquiry and finding of the AO in the assessment order except for the limitation provided as per section 275 of the Act. We have already held that the penalty is not automatic but the AO has to take a decision to impose the penalty after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee in terms of section 274 of the Act. Thus the AO in the proceedings under section 271AAB of the Act has to first decide that the conditions prescribed under the said section are satisfied for levy of penalty and then to further take a decision after considering the explanation of the assessee for non compliance of any of the conditions under clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (1) regarding the quantum of penalty. The primary condition

19 ITA No. 226/JP/2018 Shri Mukesh Moondhra vs. DCIT.

for levy of penalty is the existence of undisclosed income as per the disclosure made by the assessee under section 132(4). The term ‘undisclosed income’ has been defined in Explanations to section 271AAB. Therefore, as per the definition provided in the Explanation, the undisclosed income may have various forms and the same is not recorded in the books of accounts or other documents maintained in normal course relating to the specified previous year. As per sub-clause (i) of clause (c) of the Explanation, the undisclosed income means any income of the specified previous year represented by any money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article or things or any entry in books of accounts or other documents or transactions found in the course of search. This definition is further subject to two conditions that the said income has not been recorded on or before the date of search in the books of accounts or other documents maintained in the normal course relating to such previous year or otherwise not being disclosed to the Principal Chief Commissioner, Principal Commissioner or Commissioner before the date of search. The other forms of undisclosed income as defined in sub clause (ii) is any entry in respect of expenses recorded in the books of accounts or other documents maintained in the normal course. Therefore, the clause (ii) contemplates undisclosed income in the form of false entries of expenses recorded in the books of accounts which is not relevant for the case in hand. Since in the case of assessee the transactions of investment were found in the diary, therefore, whether these entries in the diary constitute undisclosed income as per clause (c)(i) of Explanation to Section 271AAB of the Act. The assessee is an Individual and for the year under consideration the assessee has not reported any business income nor it was assessed by the AO. Therefore, it is clear that the assessee was not required by any mandate of law to maintain regular books of accounts. In the computation of income, the assessee has shown income from Salary, income from house property and income from other sources. The returned income was accepted by the AO while framing the assessment under section 143(3) and hence assessee’s case does not fall in the category where the regular books of accounts are

20 ITA No. 226/JP/2018 Shri Mukesh Moondhra vs. DCIT.

mandatory. The entries of investment in real estate were found recorded in the diary and in the absence of any other document maintained in the normal course relating to the year under consideration, the entries in the diary are to be considered as recorded in the documents maintained in the normal course. It is not the case of the revenue that the assessee has recorded the other transactions in the other documents maintained in the regular course relating to the year under consideration and only these entries are recorded in the diary. Since the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not based on the addition and enquiry conducted by the AO in the assessment proceedings, therefore, it is incumbent on the AO to conduct a proper examination of facts, circumstances and explanation furnished by the assessee before arriving to the conclusion that penalty under section 271AAB is leviable and further whether it is 10% or 20% or 30% of such undisclosed income. Therefore, the AO is under statutory obligation to examine all the issues during the proceedings under section 271AAB after giving the assessee an opportunity to explain the charges/grounds on which the penalty is proposed to be levied. Hence it is a pre-requisite condition that the AO first specify the charges against the assessee and to make known the assessee of his default so as to afford an opportunity to explain the default/charges so brought against the assessee. Without considering the explanation of the assessee on the specific default, the order passed by the AO under section 271AAB suffers from serious illegality and therefore not sustainable in law. When a stringent action is provided in the Statute against the default committed by the assessee, then it also cast an equally stringent and strict duty on the authority responsible to take such action. Therefore, when the provisions for levy of penalty under section 271AAB is a specific provision to deal with the undisclosed income and it provides a strict penal action then the corresponding duty of the tax authority is also equally stringent. The AO cannot escape from following the strict mandatory requirement of law and particularly the principle of natural justice. The AO has neither specified the grounds and clause of section 271AAB nor has dealt with the same in the

21 ITA No. 226/JP/2018 Shri Mukesh Moondhra vs. DCIT.

impugned order passed under section 271AAB. The AO has also not given a finding that the case of the assessee falls in the definition of undisclosed income provided under clause (c)(i) of Explanation to section 271AAB. When the transactions of investment in real estate are recorded in the diary being other documents maintained by the assessee for the said purpose, then in the absence of any requirement of maintaining regular books of accounts by the assessee, the case of the assessee would not fall in the definition of undisclosed income as per clause (c) of Explanation to section 271AAB of the Act.

“3. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the issue involved herein is squarely covered in favour of the assessee in the case of DCIT vs Manish Agarwala (another member in the same Nezone Group) in ITA No. 1479/Kol/2015 for AY 2013-14 dated 9.2.2018 by the order of this tribunal , wherein it was held as under:-

i) The assessee has substantiated the manner in which the income was derived.

22 ITA No. 226/JP/2018 Shri Mukesh Moondhra vs. DCIT.

ii) Furnished the return of income therein and

iii) Paid the tax along with interest.

Based on the said finding, according to AO, the assessee satisfies the conditions enumerated in sec. 271AAB(i)(a) of the Act and thereafter levied ten percent of Rs.3 cr., which have been deleted by the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A).

23 ITA No. 226/JP/2018 Shri Mukesh Moondhra vs. DCIT.

418/LKW/2016 dated 30.01.2017 while adjudicating a case where penalty was levied under section 271AAB of the Act it was held that the provisions of Sec. 271AAB of the Act are not mandatory, which means that penalty need not be levied in each and every case wherever the assessee has made default as stated in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the Act. Sub-section (1) of Sec. 271AAB of the Act uses the word “may” not “shall”. “May” cannot be equated with “shall” especially in penalty proceeding. Using the word “may” in our opinion, gives a discretion to the AO to levy the penalty or not to levy, even if the assessee has made the default under the said provision.” Therefore, the 2nd ground of Revenue fails and we hold that penalty u/s. 271AAB of the Act is not mandatory and is discretionary. Before proceeding further, we note that the ex parte order passed by the Coordinate Bench relied upon by Ld. DR, Manoj Beswal, supra, have been recalled in MA Nos. 218 to 220/Kol/2017 dated 12.01.2018 by observing as under:

“By virtue of these miscellaneous applications, the assessee seeks to recall the order passed by this Tribunal in I.T.A. Nos. 1471, 1475&1476/Kol/2015 in the hands of Amit Agarwal, Madan Lal Beswal and Manoj Beswal respectively for the assessment year 2013-14 on the ground that notice was not served on the assessee for the hearing and on certain factual error that had crept in the order of the Tribunal. The first preliminary objection raised by the Ld. AR was that the notice of hearing was not served on the assessee for the hearing scheduled on 06.11.2017 and hence, the assessee could not be present on the said date by way of personal appearance. The second objection raised by the Ld. AR was that the Tribunal had stated in para 9 of its order that the assessee himself had accepted that he is engaged in commodities trading business and therefore mandated to maintain books of accounts in terms of section 44AA of the Act and thereby inferring that the assessee had reported the profit from commodities trading business under the head “income from business or profession”.

24 ITA No. 226/JP/2018 Shri Mukesh Moondhra vs. DCIT.

Based on this crucial finding, the Tribunal had concluded that since the transaction of commodities trading had not been entered by the assessee in his books of accounts as on the date of search on 01.08.2012 and thereby it takes the character of undisclosed income for which penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act is exigible. In this regard, we find that the Ld. AR drew our attention to the computation of the total income wherein the assessee had offered income from commodity trading only under the head income from other sources. We also find that the Ld. AO had also specifically stated in the body of the assessment order vide column no. 10 that the assessee is having only salary income and income from other sources. We find that due to the absence of the assessee at the time of hearing this particular fact had escaped the attention of the Tribunal. On perusal of the fact available on record, we find that the finding recorded by this Tribunal in para 9 of its order dated 10.11.2017 that the assessee is mandated to maintain books of accounts u/s 44AA of the Act is factually incorrect and deserves to be rectified. This mistake of primary fact had lead to a conclusion of upholding the levy of penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. Hence, in these facts and circumstances and in view of the aforesaid mistake of primary fact rightly pointed out by the ld. AR , we deem it fit to recall the orders of this Tribunal dated 10.11.2017 in the case of aforesaid assessees.”

In the aforesaid scenario, the legal position is that an order which has been recalled for de novo adjudication, is no order in the eyes of law and so it cannot be treated as a precedent. Hence, the reliance placed by the Ld. DR in respect of assessee’s in the same group concern cases as decided by the Tribunal no longer survives and cannot be treated as covered against the assessee.

25 ITA No. 226/JP/2018 Shri Mukesh Moondhra vs. DCIT.

not maintain any books of account as per the Act. According to Ld. AR, undisputedly the assessee was engaged for the first time this AY only in trading of commodities, that too which was conducted in a non- systematic manner and the income from it was duly offered to tax by the assessee in his return of income under the head “Income from Other Sources”, which, according to Ld. AR was accepted as such by the AO and drew our attention to page one of assessment order, (not the penalty order) wherein we note that the AO has acknowledged that the assessee owned up Rs. 3 cr. as his income from commodity profit and it has been disclosed in his income and expenditure for AY 2013-14 under the head “income out of speculative business from sale of commodities”, and thereafter the AO confirmed the assessee’s claim and thereafter total income was assessed by the AO as per the return submitted by the assessee. In the light of the aforesaid facts discerned from assessment order, the assessee’s case is that for the first time in this AY he was doing unsystematic speculative activity which earned income and, it was brought under the head “Income from Other Sources”, and so, accordingly, he is not required to maintain books of account as stipulated in Sec. 44AA or Sec. 44AA(2)(ii) of the Act because, these provisions are only for assesses who are earning income under the head “Business or profession”. We note that Sec. 44AA or Sec. 44AA(2)(ii) of the Act casts a duty upon the assessee who are into “Business or Profession” and such assessee’s are bound to maintain books of account as stipulated therein. For appreciating this submission let us go through the provisions of law.

“44AA. (1) Every person carrying on legal, medical, engineering or architectural profession or the profession of accountancy or technical consultancy or interior decoration or any other profession as is notified by the Board in the Official Gazette shall keep and maintain such books of account and other documents as may enable the [Assessing] Officer to compute his total income in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (2) Every

26 ITA No. 226/JP/2018 Shri Mukesh Moondhra vs. DCIT.

person carrying on business or profession [not being a profession referred to in subsection (1)] shall,—

(i) if his income from business or profession exceeds [one lakh twenty] thousand rupees or his total sales, turnover or gross receipts, as the case may be, in business or profession exceed or exceeds [ten lakh] rupees in any one of the three years immediately preceding the previous year; or

(ii) where the business or profession is newly set up in any previous year, if his income from business or profession is likely to exceed [one lakh twenty] thousand rupees or his total sales, turnover or gross receipts, as the case may be, in business or profession are or is likely to exceed [ten lakh] rupees, [during such previous year; or

(iii) where the profits and gains from the business are deemed to be the profits and gains of the assessee under [section 44AE] [or section 44BB or section 44BBB], as the case may be, and the assessee has claimed his income to be lower than the profits or gains so deemed to be the profits and gains of his business, as the case may be, during such [previous year; or]]

(iv) where the profits and gains from the business are deemed to be the profits and gains of the assessee under section 44AD and he has claimed such income to be lower than the profits and gains so deemed to be the profits and gains of his business and his income exceeds the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income- tax during such previous year,]

keep and maintain such books of account and other documents as may enable the [Assessing] Officer to compute his total income in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

27 ITA No. 226/JP/2018 Shri Mukesh Moondhra vs. DCIT.

(3) The Board may, having regard to the nature of the business or profession carried on by any class of persons, prescribe, by rules, the books of account and other documents (including inventories, wherever necessary) to be kept and maintained under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the particulars to be contained therein and the form and the manner in which and the place at which they shall be kept and maintained.

(4) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (3), the Board may prescribe, by rules, the period for which the books of account and other documents to be kept and maintained under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be retained.]”

So from a reading of the above provisions which clearly stipulates that assessee who are carrying on business or profession shall keep and maintain such books of account and other documents which may enable the AO to compute the total income. We note that assessee in the statement of total income filed before the AO has shown income only under two heads (i) salary income (ii) income from other sources. We would like to reproduce the summary of total income of the assessee filed along with the return:

Income from Salary Rs. 45,57,600 Income from Other sources Rs.3,00,24,047 Rs.3,45,81,647 6. We note that the AO has accepted the aforesaid statement of total income filed before him without contesting the claim of the assessee as to whether the assessee’s claim of income other than from salary should be from “Income from Business”. The confusion that has arisen in this case, we note is on the misdirection of AO in the assessment proceedings wherein the assessment order of the assessee, the AO has observed “during search and seizure operation, Shri Manoj Beswal had made a consolidated disclosure of Rs.32 crore vide his disclosure petition. Out of this consolidated disclosure, the assessee owned up Rs. 3 cr. In the disclosure petition Shri Manoj Beswal it was stated that the source

28 ITA No. 226/JP/2018 Shri Mukesh Moondhra vs. DCIT.

of such undisclosed income was out of commodity profit. It has been submitted that the amount has already been disclosed in his Income & Expenditure account for the AY 2013-14 under the head ‘Income out of Speculative Business from sale of commodities’. Verification of accounts confirms his claim.” This observation is flawed because, we note that AO got carried away by perusal of the “Income & Expenditure Account for AY 2013-14” submitted by the assessee before him, wherein it was shown in the income side that is right hand column as “Income from Speculative Business from sale of commodities” and left hand side column reflects the expenditure; and AO came to the conclusion that assessee has disclosed under the heading income out of Speculative Business from sale of commodities. The character of a receipt and the head under which it has to be taxed is not based on the nomenclature of receipt of income shown in Income & Expenditure Account. All the incomes of revenue nature will be posted in the right hand side column of ‘income’ in the Income & Expenditure Account and the description given therein cannot determine the head of income prescribed under chapter IV of the Act. Therefore, the observation of the AO in assessment order in the light of his action of accepting the statement of total income filed by the assessee along with return which without being contested, is erroneous, unless the AO was able to negate the claim of the assessee by bringing the income from commodity transactions as part of business income. It should be remembered that under the Income Tax Act 1961, the total income of an assessee individual /company is chargeable to tax u/s. 4 of the Act. The total income has to be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Section 14 of the Act lays down that for the purpose of computation, income of an assessee has to be classified under five heads. It is possible for an assessee/individual/company to have five different sources of income, each one of it will be chargeable to Income Tax Act. Profits and gains of business or profession is only one of the heads under which an assessee’s income is liable to be assessed to tax. If an assessee has not commenced business there cannot be any question of assessment of its profits and gains of business. That does not mean that until and unless the assessee commences its business, its income from any other source will not be taxed as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC). It has been further held that

29 ITA No. 226/JP/2018 Shri Mukesh Moondhra vs. DCIT.

when the question is whether a receipt of money is taxable or not or whether certain deduction from that receipt is principles of law and not in accordance with accountancy practice. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the question as to whether a principal receipt is of the nature of income and falls within the charge of sec. 4 of the Act is a question of law which has to be decided by the Court on the basis of the provisions of the Act and interpretation of the term ‘income’ given in a large number of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, High Court and Privy Council. After taking note of the Apex Court order as above, we note that the AO in the assessment order after having accepted the statement of total income (supra) and the return wherein the assessee has shown the income from commodities under the head “Income from Other Sources” cannot now after perusal of “Income & Expenditure Account” determine the character of transaction in the penalty proceedings as “Income from Business or Profession” which approach/action is erroneous. We note that the assessee in his statement of total income along with return has classified his income under two heads (i) Salary and (ii) from other sources and the income of Rs. 3 cr. as income from other sources, which we find the AO has not contested in the assessment order, has thus crystallized and the necessary inference drawn is that assessee an individual who was admittedly a salaried person engaged in the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration (that too for the first time) in an activity from which he derived “Income from Other Sources” are not required to maintain books of account which are applicable only if the assessee was engaged in Business or Profession. However, we further note that the transactions which yielded income, the assessee had in fact maintained records from which the AO was able to deduce the true income and expenditure of the assessee. We note the AO in the assessment order has accepted the returned income comprising of income from salary and income from other sources by observing as under :

“Total income assessed as per return Rs.3,44,65,120/-”.

And further we note that the AO had specifically stated in the body of the assessment order vide column no. 10 that the assessee is having only salary

30 ITA No. 226/JP/2018 Shri Mukesh Moondhra vs. DCIT.

income and income from other sources. Thus from a perusal of the assessment order, it is not in dispute that assessee is not engaged in any business. And the AO cannot change the character of income in a derivative proceeding which is an off-shoot of assessment proceedings i.e. the penalty proceedings without contesting and making a finding against the claim of the assessee in the assessment order as discussed above.

“Penalty where search has been initiated. '271AAB. (1) The Assessing Officer may, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, direct that, in a case where search has been initiated under section 132 on or after the 1st day of July, 2012, the assessee shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to tax, if any, payable by him,—

(a) a sum computed at the rate of ten per cent of the undisclosed income of the specified previous year, if such assessee—

********

Explanation – For the purposes of this section, -

31 ITA No. 226/JP/2018 Shri Mukesh Moondhra vs. DCIT.

(a) ……….

(b) ……….

(c) "undisclosed income" means—

(i) any income of the specified previous year represented, either wholly or partly, by any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or any entry in the books of account or other documents or transactions found in the course of a search under section 132, which has—

(A) not been recorded on or before the date of search in the books of account or other documents maintained in the normal course relating to such previous year; or

(B) otherwise not been disclosed to the [Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner before the date of search; or

(ii) any income of the specified previous year represented, either wholly or partly, by any entry in respect of an expense recorded in the books of account or other documents maintained in the normal course relating to the specified previous year which is found to be false and would not have been found to be so had the search not been conducted.”

According to the Ld. AR, from the facts and circumstances described above, since the assessee is not engaged in business or profession, he does not require to maintain the books of account as per sec. 44AA or sec. 44AA(2) of the Act, therefore, the assessee’s case falls in the second limb i.e. “or other documents” as stipulated u/s. 271AAB Explanation (c) (supra) which describes undisclosed income for the purposes of this section which is very important to adjudicate this issue. Therefore, the question is when the search took place, the assessee’s

32 ITA No. 226/JP/2018 Shri Mukesh Moondhra vs. DCIT.

transactions (in this case, the speculative transaction) has been found to be recorded in the “other documents” which is (retrieved from the assessee’s accountant’s drawer) and based on that the assessee declared Rs. 3 cr. during search and later returned income of Rs. 3 cr. as income under the head “Income from Other Sources” which was accepted by the AO in toto. We note that since the income under question (Rs. 3 cr.) was in fact entered in the “other documents” maintained in the normal course relating to the AY 2013-14, which document was retrieved during search, hence, the amount of Rs. 3 cr. offered by the assessee does not fall in the ken of “undisclosed income” defined in Sec. 271AAB of the Act. So, Rs. 3 cr. which was commodity profit recorded in the other document maintained by the assessee which was retrieved during search cannot be termed as “undisclosed Income” in the definition given u/s. 271AAB of the Act. Since Rs. 3 cr. cannot be termed as “Undisclosed Income” as per sec. 271AAB of the Act, no penalty can be levied against the assessee. Therefore, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the aforesaid reasoning rendered by us.

Therefore, when the assessee is not required to maintain the books of account as per section 44AA, then the matter is required to be examined whether the alleged undisclosed income is recorded in the other documents maintained in the normal course as per clause (c) to Explanation to section 271AAB. Undisputedly the alleged income was found recorded in the diary which is nothing but the other record maintained in the normal course, thus the same would not fall in the definition of undisclosed income. Once the said income is found as recorded in the other documents maintained in the normal course, then it cannot be presumed that the

33 ITA No. 226/JP/2018 Shri Mukesh Moondhra vs. DCIT.

assessee would not have disclosed the same in the return of income to be filed after about one year from the date of search. Hence, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case as well as the various decisions on this point, we hold that the penalty levied under section 271AAB is not sustainable and the same is deleted.”

In the case in hand though the assessee was required to maintain regular books of accounts as per the provisions of section 44AA of the IT Act, however, the AO in the assessment proceedings rejected the books of accounts of the assessee under section 145(3) and assessed the income from the activity of civil contract on estimated basis by making a lump sum addition of Rs. 4,50,000/-. The diary found during the course of search and seizure at the business premises of the assessee contains the entries of advances given for purchase of land. However, until and unless the said transaction is carried out as part of regular business activity, the same is not required to be recorded in the regular books of account and, therefore, the said amount of advance given for purchase of land can be recorded in the capital account of the assessee. Thus the transactions found recorded in the diary are to be recorded in the capital account of the assessee as well as in the balance sheet prepared as on 31st March, 2014 and not on the date of search as on 4th/5th September, 2013. The nature of transactions if not carried out or entered into as part of the business activity are not required to be recorded in the regular books of accounts maintained for the purpose of business activity of the assessee. This Tribunal in case of Shri Raja Ram Maheshwari Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 992/JP2017 vide order dated 10.01.2019 has again considered this issue of undisclosed income as per definition given in the explanation to section 271AAB of the Act and held in para 12 to 14 as under: “12. Now, coming to another contention of the ld AR where he has challenged the findings of the ld. CIT(A) that penalty U/s 271AAB is mandatory in nature and there is no discretion with the Income tax authorities. It was submitted by the ld AR that in section 271AAB, the

34 ITA No. 226/JP/2018 Shri Mukesh Moondhra vs. DCIT.

word ‘may’ is used instead of ‘shall’ so it is not mandatory but same is discretionary. It was submitted that it is settled position of law that penalties are not compulsory, not mandatory but are also discretionary considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case. In support, reliance was placed on provisions of section 158BFA(2) wherein similar phraselogy has been used by the legislature and decision of Hon’ble A.P High Court in case of RadhaKrishna Vihar (ITA no. 740/2011).

“5. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. During the appeal hearing, the Ld. A.R. vehemently argued that the A.O. has levied the penalty under the impression that the levy of penalty in the case of admission of income u/s 132(4) is mandatory. The Ld. A.R. further

35 ITA No. 226/JP/2018 Shri Mukesh Moondhra vs. DCIT.

stated that penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act is not mandatory but discretionary. The provisions of section 271AAB of the Act is parimateria with that of section 158BFA of the Act relating to block assessment and accordingly argued that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but discretionary. When there is reasonable cause, the penalty is not exigible. The Ld. A.R. taken us to the section 271AAB of the Act and also section 158BFA(2) of the Act and argued that the words used in section 271AAB of the Act and the words used in section 158BFA(2) of the Act are identical. Hence, argued that the penalty section 271AAB of the Act penalty is not automatic and it is on the merits of each case. For ready reference, we reproduce hereunder section 158BFA (2) of the Act and section 271AAB of the Act which reads as under: 271AAB [Penalty where search has been initiated]: (1) The Assessing Officer may, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, direct that, in a case where search has been initiated under section 132 on or after the 1st day of July, 2012, the assessee shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to tax, if any, payable by him— (a) a sum computed at the rate of ten per cent of the undisclosed income of the specified previous year, if such assessee—

(i) in the course of search, in a statement under sub-section (4) of section 132, admits the undisclosed income and specifies the manner in which such income has been derived.

(ii) Substantiates the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived; and

36 ITA No. 226/JP/2018 Shri Mukesh Moondhra vs. DCIT.

(iii) On or before the specified date—

(A) pays the tax, together with interest, if any, in respect of the undisclosed income; and

(B) furnishes the return of income for the specified previous year declaring such undisclosed income therein;

(b) a sum computed at the rate of twenty per cent of the undisclosed income of the specified previous year, if such assessee—

(i) in the course of the search, in a statement under sub- section (4_) of section 132, does not admit the undisclosed income; and

(ii) on or before the specified date-

(A) declares such income in the return of income furnished for the specified previous year; and

(B) pays the tax, together with interest, if any, in respect of the undisclosed income;

(C) a sum which shall not be less than thirty per cent but which shall not exceed ninety per cent of the undisclosed income of the specified previous year, if it is not covered by the provisions of clauses (a) and (b).

37 ITA No. 226/JP/2018 Shri Mukesh Moondhra vs. DCIT.

(2) No penalty under the provisions of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). Section 158BFA(2): (2) The Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) in the course of any proceedings under this Chapter, may direct that a person shall pay by way of penalty a sum which shall not be less than the amount of tax leviable but which shall not exceed three times the amount of tax so leviable in respect of the undisclosed income determined by the Assessing Officer under clause (c) of section 158BC: Provided that no order imposing penalty shall be made in respect of a person if— (i) such person has furnished a return under clause (a) of section 158BC;

(ii) the tax payable on the basis of such return has been paid or, if the assets seized consist of money, the assessee offers the money so seized to be adjusted against the tax payable.

(iii) Evidence of tax paid is furnished along with the return; and

(iv) An appeal is not filed against the assessment of that part of income which is shown in the return: Provided further that the provisions of the preceding proviso shall not apply where the undisclosed income determined by the Assessing Officer is in excess of the income shown in the return and in such cases the penalty shall be imposed on that portion of undisclosed income determined which is in excess of the amount of undisclosed income shown in the return.

38 ITA No. 226/JP/2018 Shri Mukesh Moondhra vs. DCIT.

39 ITA No. 226/JP/2018 Shri Mukesh Moondhra vs. DCIT.

words, while payment of interest is mandatory levy of penalty is discretionary. It is trite position of law that discretion is vested and authority has to be exercised in a reasonable and rational manner depending upon the facts and circumstances of the each case. Plain reading of section 271AAB and 274 of the Act indicates that the imposition of penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act is not mandatory but directory. Accordingly we hold that the penalty u/s 271AAB is not mandatory but to be imposed on merits of the each case.”

In view of our findings in the case of Shri Manoj Moondhra in ITA Nos.

857/JP/2017 and 225/JP/2018, the penalty levied by the AO under section

271AAB/154 stands cancelled.

40 ITA No. 226/JP/2018 Shri Mukesh Moondhra vs. DCIT.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 22/03/2019.

Sd/- Sd/-

(foØe flag ;kno) (fot; iky jko ½ (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV ) (VIJAY PAL RAO) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 22/03/2019. Das/Santosh. आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Mukesh Moondhra, Jaipur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A) 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत. 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File {ITA No. 226/JP/2018} vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत