POONAM MOHTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, C.C-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1239/KOL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 February 2025AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)8 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It held that the voluntary disclosure of Rs. 50 lakhs did not fall under the definition of 'undisclosed income' as per Section 271AAB because no incriminating material was found related to the addition, and the disclosure was suo motu, not correlated with any seized documents. Consequently, the penalty imposed under Section 271AAB was cancelled.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Poonam Mohta, appealed against the CIT(A)'s order confirming a penalty of Rs. 50,00,000 u/s 271AAB of the Income Tax Act for AY 2015-16. There was a 52-day delay in filing the appeal, for which the assessee sought condonation, attributing it to the illness of her Chartered Accountant. The penalty was imposed following a voluntary disclosure of Rs. 50 lakhs by the assessee, which she contended was not 'undisclosed income' as per the Act.

What were the issues?

Condonation of delay in filing appeal; Whether voluntary disclosure of income during assessment, without incriminating material or correlation to seized documents, attracts penalty under Section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 271AAB,Section 271(1)(c),Section 274,Section 153A,Section 132

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI SONJOY SARMA & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

order

: February 20th, 2025 ORDER

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2015-16 dated 31.07.2023, which has been passed against the penalty order u/s 271AAB of the Act, dated 29.06.2017.

1.2. Considering the application seeking condonation of delay as well as the affidavit and the reasons stated therein, we are satisfied that the assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant appeal within statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.

2.

The assessee is in appeal before the Bench raising the following grounds of appeal: “1) That under the facts and circumstances of the case the Id CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in imposition of penalty amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- u/s 271AAB of the Income Tax Act which under the legal context ought not to be levied. 2) That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete the ground or grounds of appeal.”

3. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. It was submitted before the Bench that the penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act is not leviable as the voluntary disclosure made by the assessee does not come under the purview of section u/s 271AAB of the Act. Our attention was drawn to page 8 of the paper book being the assessment order, wherein the assessee’s disclosure of a sum of Rs. 50 lakh has been added in the computation of the total income. It was submitted that neither any incriminating material was found nor the notice was free from defect as the notice did not specify under which of the three limbs was it issued and this issue is covered by the decision

More judgments on Section 271AAB

All 797 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271AAB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →