M/S. PAN REALTORS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI
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 271AAA was not justified as there was no undisclosed income found in relation to seized materials for the year under consideration. The disclosure of Rs. 10 crores was also not solely attributable to the assessee for the relevant assessment year.
What were the facts?
A search and seizure action was conducted on the assessee and related group companies. The assessee declared an additional business income of Rs. 10 crores post-search. The Assessing Officer (AO) levied a penalty under Section 271AAA on this amount.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 271AAA can be levied when no undisclosed income is established from seized materials and the disclosed amount is not solely attributable to the assessee for the relevant year.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES: ‘F’, NEW DELHI
Before: SMT. BEENA A PILLAI & SHRI MAHARISHI PRASHANT
ORDER PER BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal has been filed by assessee against order of Ld.CIT(Appeals)-XXVI, New Delhi dated 27.02.2015 for A.Y 2012- 13 on the following grounds of appeal: “1. The notice u/s 271AAA in general terms without specifying default (q or r) as issued is improper and is not in accordance with the requirements of law so as to enable the A.O. to continue valid penalty proceedings and any such consequent order is, therefore, bad in law.
2. The Ld. Assessing Officer has erred on facts and in law in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA and as such the consequent order is contrary to law, facts and material on record.
3. The Ld. Assessing Officer has erred on facts and in law in imposing penalty of Rs.50 lakhs on the amount offered in the return of income and accepted without dispute.
4. The appellant denies liability to penalty of Rs.50 lakhs as determined and computed by the Ld.AO and the manner in which A.Y.:2012-13 PAN Realtors P Ltd. it has been so determined or so computed without determining any undisclosed income in the assessment order.”
2. Brief facts of the case are as under: Assessee filed its return of income on 29/09/12 declaring total income of Rs.13,17,38,210/-. A search and seizure action was carried out at business and residential premises of Nirala Group of Companies along with that of assessee. The case was transferred to Central Circle 3, and notice under section 143 (2)/142 (1) was issued to assessee. 2.1. Assessee was called upon to furnish return of income in response to which assessee filed return of income as the original return of income. Ld.AO observed that assessee had shown business income from construction of houses, flats, buildings farmhouses, commercial centres etc. Various details were called for and case was discussed with Representative. 2.2. Further, assessee declared an additional business income of Rs. 10 crores for Financial Year 2010-11 and 2011-12 by Sh. Sudesh Kumar Garg, main person of the group and Director of assessee before Investigation Wing. Ld.AO initiated and levied 10% penalty under section 271 AAA of the of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), as assessee did not explain manner in which undisclosed income of Rs. 5 crore has been derived, and included in computation of income, accompanying return in compliance to notice issued. 2.3. Aggrieved by penalty order passed by Ld. AO, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) who confirmed the penalty levied by Ld. AO.
More judgments on Section 271AAA
- Rosy Blue (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central…ITA 3351/MUM/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed17 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
- B Nanji Enterprises Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2401/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed5 Aug 2026AY 2018-19
- B Nanji Enterprises Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2400/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed5 Aug 2026AY 2017-18
- B Nanji Enterprises Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2399/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed5 Aug 2026AY 2016-17
- B Nanji Enterprises Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2398/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed5 Aug 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Surya Prakash Aroma vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 27 Oct 2026
- Mrs. Aqsa Begum vs. Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026