PREETI JAGDISH AGRAWAL,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTNAT COMMISSIONE OF INCOME TAX, CENTAL CIRCLE 1(2), NAGPUR

It emerges at the outset that these twin assessees’ as many appeals suffer from 223 days delay each since preferred against the CIT(A)'s order dated 12.11.2020 and instituted on 23.08.2021. The same admittedly fall within Coviid-2019 pandemic outbreak period between 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 as per hon’ble apex court’s directions in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 438 ITR 296 (SC) read with judgment in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 432 ITR 206 (SC) dated 08-03-2021 and 421 ITR 314, excluding the covid-19 pandemic outbreak period from for all intents and purposes under the limitation law. We thus condone the impugned delay of 223 days in both these appeals in very terms.

We now advert to both these assessees’ identical sole substantive grievance that the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in levying the impugned sec.271AAB penalties of Rs.2,05,000/- each i.e., @ 10% of the undisclosed income of Rs.20,50,000/- in their cases, respectively. The department taken us to the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion affirming Assessing Officer’s action in this respect as under :

Suffice to say, it has come on record that this is indeed an instance of both these assessees’ having derived their undisclosed income in above terms u/sec.271AAB Explanation-(c) (i)(A) of the Act representing their tuition fee in various educational institutions. And also that the department had come across the corresponding seized material during the course of search herein dated 05.08.2015 which made these assessees’ to admit additional income of Rs.41 lakhs ÷ 2 coming to Rs.20.50 lakhs each (supra) which stood declared in their respective returns. The assessees’ sole substantive grievance appears to be that the Assessing Officer’s corresponding show cause notices dated 29.12.2017 (supra) had not been validly issued. We find no merit in the assessees’ stand once it has come on record that the impugned penalty has been levied @ 10% since falling in the first and foremost limb u/sec.271AAB(1)(a)(i) to (iii) of the Act in the specified circumstances. Their identical contention therefore, that the Assessing Officer ought to have specified corresponding limb(s) to this effect fails to cut any ice before us. Faced with the situation 13 ITA.Nos.69 & 71/Nag./2021 and primarily for the reason that these assessees’ have been found to have derived their undisclosed income as per the seized incriminating material followed by their search admission(s), we find no reason to interfere with the learned lower authorities action invoking sec.271AAB penalties in their respective cases. These assessees’ fail in their respective grounds therefore. Ordered accordingly.

These twin assessees’ as many appeals are dismissed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.