CHANDER BALLABH,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2486/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 November 2023AY 2010-11Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member)4 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the penalty levied under Section 271AAB, finding that the income was disclosed only after the search and would have otherwise escaped assessment. The assessee failed to controvert the findings of the lower authorities.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were dismissed for being defective as no one attended the hearing to rectify the defects. For one of the appeals, the issue was about penalty levied under Section 271AAB following a search operation.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271AAB is leviable when income is disclosed under pressure during a search, and whether the assessee's failure to remove defects warrants dismissal of appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 143(3),Section 271AAB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “B” BENCH: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & SHRI KUL BHARAT

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Upadhyay, Sr.DR
Hearing: 15.11.2023Pronounced: 20.11.2023

ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : This bunch of three appeals filed by the assessee against the different order of the Ld. CIT(A)-30, New Delhi dated 31.01.2018 for the assessment years 2010-11, 2014-15 & 2015-16.

2.

At the time of hearing no one attending the proceedings for the last since August 2023. Even prior to that, no one attended the proceedings and removed defects as the registry has reported certain defects vide order sheet entry 10.04.2018. The assessee was required to remove defects. However, no one has attended the proceedings and removed the defects; therefore, & 2487/Del/2018 for the assessment years 2010-11 & 2014-15 are dismissed as being defective. However, the assessee would be at liberty to remove defects and more appropriate application for restoration of appeal.

3.

Now, coming to the assessee has raised the following ground is as under:-

1.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty levied by the AO without appreciating the fact the there was no concealed income. 4. The only effective ground is against sustaining the penalty levied u/s. 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The facts and brief are that a search & seizure action u/s. 132 of the Act was conducted on 09.10.2014 at various business and residential premises of M/s.

Kuber Group of cases, including premise of M/s. Tamta Construction Company. The case of the assessee was centralized; thereafter, the assessment u/s. 143(3) was completed at income of INR 59,69,640/- and the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAB on the ground that during the course of search proceedings, documents relating to details of expenditure amounting to INR 2,66,72,927/- including hidden expenses of INR 2 crore was mentioned. The director of M/s. Tamta Construction Co. P. Ltd. the assessee herein, admitted an additional income of INR 2 crore in his statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act. The assessee was issued a show cause as to why penalty u/s. 271AAB should not be levied. In response thereto; the assessee filed his reply imposed the penalty of INR 95,000/- in respect of income disclosed in the return of income in the basis had there not been a search on 09.10.2014 amount of INR 95,000/- would have escaped assessment.

5.

Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A), who confirmed the penalty, now the assessee is appeal before this Tribunal.

6.

The Ld. Departmental Representatives supportive the orders of the lower authorities

7.

We have heard Ld. DR perused the material available on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue by observing as under:-

7. I have examined the facts at hand. As a result of search action, certain incriminating documents) were unearthed. Based on such incriminating document, Shri Chander Ballabh Tamta, Director of M/s Tamta Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. disclosed additional income of Rs. 1,69,80,500/-, in the hands of M/s Tamta Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. for A.Y. 2015-16. A sum of Rs. 95,000/-, was disclosed by Shri Chander Ballabh in his individual name for A.Y. 2014-15. The appellant has owned up this (hitherto undisclosed) income only pursuant to search. The addition made by the AO was not challenged by him in appeal. The disclosure made by the appellant does not absolve him of the wrong doing. Though the appellant has claimed that the amount was surrendered under pressure, I do not find any evidence of the same. It has been established beyond doubt that if search u/s 132 of the Act had not been carried out, the income amounting to Rs. 95,000/-, would have remained untaxed. As such, I uphold the action of the AO in levying penalty amounting to Rs. 9,500/-, u/s 27 1AAB of the I.T. Act, 1961. As such, penalty amounting to Rs. 9,500/-, is hereby confirmed.

8.

The assessee has failed to controvert the finding of the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) same is hereby affirmed the grounds raised by the appellant are dismissed. The appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →