ABIRAKHAM RAJASEKAR,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that for AY 2017-18 and 2018-19, the penalty levied under Section 270A was confirmed as the income was not initially disclosed. However, for AY 2019-20, the penalty levied under Section 271AAB was reversed as the financial year was not concluded at the time of the search and transactions were recorded.
What were the facts?
A search and seizure operation revealed that the assessee, a Managing Director of a chit fund company, was conducting an unregistered chit fund business and earning commission which was not offered to tax. The assessee subsequently filed returns of income including this undisclosed income.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 270A is leviable for undisclosed income discovered during a search and subsequently included in the return filed under Section 153A. Whether penalty under Section 271AAB is sustainable when the financial year was not concluded at the time of search and transactions were accounted for.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 270A,Section 271AAB,Section 132,Section 153A,Section 139,Section 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(6)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.
- Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT443 citing358 ITR 593 · 2013 · SC · Read judgment
- PCIT v. Neeraj Jindal157 citing393 ITR 1 · 2017 · HC · Read judgment
- Kirit Dahyabhai Patel v. ACIT60 citing80 Taxmann.com 162 · 2017 · HC
- CIT V. B G Shirke Construction Technology ( P) Ltd. (2017) 246 Taxman 300 ( Bombay) ACIT v. V N Deva Doss23 citing32 Taxmann.com 133 · 2013 · ITAT
- ACIT v. Kirit Dahyabhai Patel7 citing121 ITD 159 · 2009 · ITAT
- A.P. Sahgal v. ACIT3 citing89 ITD 580 · 2004 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI & SHRI JAGADISH
आदेश / O R D E R
PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid three appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AYs) 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 arises out of the orders of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Chennai [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 25.09.2023.
, 1409 & 1410/Chny/2023 :- 2 -:
The facts in all the appeals of the assessee are identical and issues are common hence, we proceed to pass a common order. For brevity, we shall take up the appeal in for A.Y 2018-19 as lead case.
The effective ground of appeal in this appeal of assessee is against confirming the penalty levied u/s. 270A of the Act of Rs. 24,44,500/- in A.Y 2017-18 and Rs. 28,19,937/- in A.Y 2018-19 & Rs. 10,28,700/- in A.Y 2019-20 u/s. 271AAB of the Act.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Managing Director of M/s. AKPM Chit Pvt. Ltd. A search and seizure operation u/s. 132 of the Act was carried out in the case of Shri S. Mohanraj and his related groups on 06.03.2019 and the office premises of M/s.
AKPM Chit Pvt Ltd. was also covered. During the search, XL sheet was found and seized which revealed that the assessee was conducting unregistered chit fund business and earned commission which was not offered to tax. The A.O consequent upon the search u/s. 132 of the Act, had issued notice u/s. 153A of the Act. In response to the notice, the assessee filed return of income by declaring total income of Rs. 60,48,400/- including the income admitted during the search and seizure operation. The assessee , 1409 & 1410/Chny/2023 :- 3 -: during the search and seizure, has admitted a net profit of 27% on the face value of unregistered chit fund as income:
A.Y Income admitted 2017-18 Rs. 39,55,500/- 2018-19 Rs. 45,63,000/-
The A.O in the assessment order passed u/s 153A accepted the return of income, but initiated penalty us/. 270A of the Act for A.Y 2017-18 and A.Y 2018-19 for misreporting of income and penalty u/s. 271AAB(1A) of the Act for A.Y 2019-20. The assessee before the A.O has stated that there was no misreporting of income as the return of income filed in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act is to be treated as return filed u/s. 139 of the Act and the A.O has accepted the return of income in assessment order passed under section 153A of the Act.
However, the A.O levied penalty as the assessee has not reported the income from unregistered chit fund, which came to knowledge only during the course of search and seizure operation and return was filled subsequent to search, in response to notice u/s. 153A of the Act. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the penalty order.
When the appeal was called out, no one appeared from assessee side. The appeal was listed on 30.04.2024, 11.06.2024, , 1409 & 1410/Chny/2023 :- 4 -:
10.07.2024, 20.08.2024, 15.10.2024, 22.10.2024, 04.12.2024 and 05.1.2024, but no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee. We, however find that assessee has filed written submission on 03.12.2024 which is on record. We therefore, proceed to decide the case with the able assistance of Ld. DR, Shri K. Rohan Raj, Addl. CIT, based on the written submissions filed by the assessee.
The Ld. AR in his written submissions has submitted that the return of income filed by the assessee u/s. 153A of the Act are to be treated as return filed u/s. 139(1) of the Act by virtue of law stated in Section 153A(1A) of the Act. The Ld. AR has submitted that in the case of assessee, the income admitted in the return of income filed u/s. 153A of the Act and the income assessed are same hence, there is no under reporting of income for levy of penalty u/s. 270A of the Act.
The Ld. AR has relied on the case of PCIT-19 vs. Neeraj Jindal 393 ITR 1 (Delhi) and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kirit Dahyabai Patel vs. ACIT [2017] 80 taxmann.com 162 (Guj.) and order of ITAT, Chennai Benches in the case of ACIT Vs. VN Devadoss [2013] 32 taxmann.com 133 (Chennai-Trib.) in support of his contention.
, 1409 & 1410/Chny/2023 :- 5 -:
The Ld. Departmental Representative, on the other hand, has submitted that the assessee has included the unaccounted income from unregistered chits fund in the return of income in response to notice u/s. 153A of the Act, which is consequent upon search operation conducted on 06.03.2019, therefore assessee has clearly misreported his income. The Ld. DR has submitted that the assessee has disclosed additional income in pursuant to the search in the return filed u/s. 153A of the Act particulars of which was concealed by the assessee while filing the original return of income. The Ld. D.R also relied on the case of A.P. Sahgal vs. ACIT [2004] 89 ITD 580 (Delhi), wherein it has been held that filing of revised return will not absolve the assessee from penal action. The Ld. DR also relied on the case of ACIT vs. Kirit Dahyabhai Patel [2009] 121 ITD 159 (Ahmedabad)(TM).
We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. The assessee has filled return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 24.10.2017 disclosing total income of Rs 20,92,900 and for A.Y 2018-19 on 27.09.2018 on total income of Rs 34,80,190. The returns were processed u/s 143(1) on 30.10.2019 and 10.02.2019 respectively. A search was conducted u/s. 132 on 06.03.2019 and unaccounted income from unregistered chit fund was found , based on which assessee has filled return of income including the unaccounted , 1409 & 1410/Chny/2023 :- 6 -: income in response to notice u/s 153A. The only issue to adjudicate is whether penalty u/s. 270A of the Act is to be levied in case assessee has disclosed the income admitted during search in response to notice issued u/s. 153A of the Act and the A.O has accepted the return of income in order passed u/s. 153A.
It is evident that the assessee has not shown income from unregistered chits fund in the original return filled u/s 139(1) but included the undisclosed income found during search only in response to notice u/s. 153A of the Act. It is true that section 153A(1)(a) states that a return filled in response to a section 153A notice is to be treated as return under section 139. However this does not absolve the assessee from penalty liability if the income disclosed in the return was previously undisclosed or underreported. The section 270(9)(e) of the Act clearly states that failure to record any receipt in books of account having bearing on total income is a case of misreporting of income . In view of above, the arguments of assessee and case laws relied are not relevant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mak Data P.
Ltd. Vs. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC) has observed that it is trite law that the voluntary disclosure does not release the Appellant-assessee from the mischief of penal proceedings and the law does not provide that when an assessee makes a voluntary disclosure of his concealed , 1409 & 1410/Chny/2023 :- 7 -: income, he had to be absolved from penalty. We do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld CIT(A) holding that the present case is covered by the provisions of section 270A(9)(e) and therefore the same is being upheld. In light of the above, penalty levied for AYs 2017-18 is hereby confirmed. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee for A.Y 2017-18 is dismissed.
We find that the identical issue is involved in assessee’s appeal for A.Y 2018-19 also and accordingly, our adjudication above in A.Y 2017-18 applies mutatis mutandis to this case as well. Therefore, for the similar reasons, we also confirm the penalty levied for A.Y 2018-
Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee for A.Y 2018-19 is dismissed.
ITA No. 1410/Chny/2023 for A.Y 2019-20:
The A.O has levied penalty u/s. 271AAB of Rs. 10,28,700/-. We find that search was conducted in this case on 01.03.2019 and due date of filing the return was on 31.10.2019. The assessee has filed return of income of Rs. 53,32,430/- and the same has been accepted by the A.O in the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. The A.O has , 1409 & 1410/Chny/2023 :- 8 -: levied penalty u/s 271AAB on the ground that assessee failed to maintain books of accounts and consequently transactions regarding unregistered chits found in excel sheet maintained in the computer are not recorded in the books of account ought to have been maintained by him. The assessee, on the other hand in the written submission has submitted that he has filled return of income u/s 139(1) within the due date prescribed by the Act and return of income has been accepted by the A.O. The assessee has also submitted that the financial year was not concluded as on the date of search and the chit transaction were accounted in the software maintained in the normal course of business. We find that the financial year has not ended at the time of search and all transactions have been recorded in the software maintained. Assessee has filled return of income including all transaction within the due date prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act and return of income has been accepted in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, Penalty levied u/s 271AAB of the Act is not sustainable. We accordingly reverse the order of Ld CIT(A) and delete the penalty. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee for A.Y 2019-20 is allowed.
, 1409 & 1410/Chny/2023 :- 9 -:
In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for A.Ys 2017-18 & 2018-19 are dismissed and the appeal for A.Y 2019-20 is allowed.
Order pronounced on 26th February, 2025.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Abirakham Rajasekar, Coimbatore vs ACIT, Central Circle-2, CoimbatoreChennai26 Feb 2025Partly Allowed
The Tribunal held that for AY 2017-18 and 2018-19, the penalty levied under Section 270A was confirmed as the income was not initially disclosed. However, for AY 2019-20, the penalty levied under Section 271AAB was rever...
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Jsr Infra Developers Private Limited…Chennai28 Feb 2025Dismissed
The Tribunal held that a deduction under Section 80IA can be claimed for the first time in a return filed pursuant to a notice under Section 153A, provided the assessment is abated. The Revenue's grounds of appeal were d...
- Shri Devendra Swarupchand Shingavi, Pune vs Commissioner of Income Tax(A), Pune-11, PunePune20 May 2024Partly Allowed
Also relies on Kirit Dahyabhai Patel v. ACIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case, considering the interest of justice and the assessee's submission of illness.
- Dr. Subash Chandra Jena, Bhubaneswar vs ACIT, Central Circle, CuttackCuttack8 Jan 2020Partly Allowed
Also relies on Kirit Dahyabhai Patel v. ACIT and 1 other authority
For AYs 2010-11 and 2011-12, the Tribunal upheld the penalty, finding Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) applicable due to undisclosed income discovered post-search. For AYs 2012-13 to 2015-16, the Tribunal deleted the ...
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Ta, Jaipur vs Shri Nath Corporation, JaipurJaipur24 Sept 2025Dismissed
Also relies on Kirit Dahyabhai Patel v. ACIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reasoning was based on the principle that penalty cannot be imposed unless the conditions s...
More judgments on Section 270A
- Kamleshkumar Somalal Bhatt, Himatnagar vs Income Tax Ofifcer, Ward 1, HimatnagarITA 2130/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2125/AHD/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-2020
- Kkg Associates, Visakhapatnam vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)…ITA 345/VIZ/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Shamsunder Pritesh Malode, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-12(1), HyderabadITA 399/HYD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Rama Naidu Gutha, Anantapur vs ITO, Ward -1, AnantapurITA 1895/HYD/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026