SH. PADAM SINGHEE,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 could not be levied as no statement under Section 132(4) was recorded during the search, nor was the assessee questioned about the manner of deriving the undisclosed income. The assessee's voluntary surrender and subsequent tax payment were considered.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against a penalty levied under Section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following a search operation. The assessee had surrendered a significant amount of income, and tax was paid thereon.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 271AAA can be levied when no statement under Section 132(4) is recorded and the assessee is not questioned about the source of surrendered income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)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.
- Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa502 citing83 ITR 26 · 1972 · SC
- Bhagirath Aggarwal v. CIT144 citing215 Taxmann 229 · 2013 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI
Before: SH. SHAMIM YAHYA & SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA
The appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 31.07.2014 of CIT(A)-XXXI, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) arising out of an appeal before it against the order dated 27.09.2013 passed u/s 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the DCIT, Circle-11, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as the Ld. AO). 2. Assessee is in appeal raising following grounds : “
1. The order passed is illegal, invalid, and bad in law.
2. The Penalty levied at Rs. 42,65,000/- is unjustified and unwarranted.
3. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the penalty shall not be levied ordinarily where the assessee is not at fault or guilty of misconduct. The Ld. AO and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred by levying penalty on the appellant without any finding/proving anything on record in relation to the additional income. Hence the penalty levied is uncalled and without any basis.
4. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT (A) and the Ld Assessing Officer erred by considering that the appellant fails to fulfill the conditions of section 271 AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Whereas the appellant has truly disclosed all the facts in the course of search whatever being asked by the oath administrator. Hence, penalty levied is against the provisions of the law and shall be deleted. 5. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel v. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 still hold good and applicable to the appellant’s case. Hence the penalty levied is unjustified. 6. The above grounds of appeal
are without prejudice to one another.
7. The assesee craves leave to add, amend, alter or forgo any of the grounds at the time of or before the hearing.”
Heard and perused the record.
None has appeared for the assessee while the notices issued have been received back to the report that ‘assessee has left’. Similar report was received earlier. In fact what transpires from record is that the appeal was earlier disposed of by order dated 03.10.2017 for non-appearance of the assessee/ appellant thereafter on filing in the miscellaneous application the order was recalled. The Miscellaneous application filed for the assessee mentioned the fact that the company was ordered to be wound up by the order of Hon’ble Delhi High Court. Accordingly arguments of Ld. DR were heard who supported the findings of Ld. Tax Authorities below.
In the light of aforesaid it can be observed that the impugned order of penalty has been passed u/s 271AAA of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) has observed on the basis of record that no statement u/s 132(4) was recorded while the Ld. AO had mentioned in the penalty order in para 5 that assessee has not furnished any explanation in respect of surrendered income u/s 132(4) amounting to Rs. 4,26,50,000/- either at the time of assessment proceedings or during the course of penalty proceedings.
It is relevant to reproduce here Section 271AAA of the Act of convenient determination of the grounds; ‘271AAA. Penalty where search has been initiated.—(1) The Assessing Officer may, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, direct that, in a case where search has been initiated under section 132 on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, the assessee shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to tax, if any, payable by him, a sum computed at the rate of ten per cent of the undisclosed income of the specified previous year.
(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply if the assessee,— (i ) in the course of the search, in a statement under sub-section (4) of section 132, admits the undisclosed income and specifies the manner in which such income has been derived; (ii ) substantiates the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived; and (iii ) pays the tax, together with interest, if any, in respect of the undisclosed income. (3) No penalty under the provisions of clause (c) of sub- section (1) of section 271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub- section (1). (4) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a ) "undisclosed income" means—
(i) any income of the specified previous year represented, either wholly or partly, by any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or any entry in the books of account or other documents or transactions found in the course of a search under section 132, which has— (A ) not been recorded on or before the date of search in the books of account or other documents maintained in the normal course relating to such previous year; or (B ) otherwise not been disclosed to the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner before the date of the search; or (ii) any income of the specified previous year represented, either wholly or partly, by any entry in respect of an expense recorded in the books of account or other documents maintained in the normal course relating to the specified previous year which is found to be false and would not have been found to be so had the search not been conducted; (b ) "specified previous year" means the previous year— (i) which has ended before the date of search, but the date of filing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 for such year has not expired before the date of search and the assessee has not furnished the return of income for the previous year before the said date; or (ii) in which search was conducted.’
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 →- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026