A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD
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 assessee's undisclosed income, once offered and included in the return, could be set off against existing business losses. The penalty was not sustainable as the assessee was not obliged to volunteer explanations on the manner of deriving income in the absence of specific inquiry during the search.
What were the facts?
A search operation at the assessee's premises revealed undisclosed income. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty under Section 271AAA for failure to substantiate the manner of earning this income, despite it being offered and set off against business losses.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 271AAA is leviable when undisclosed income is offered and set off against business losses, and if the assessee is required to substantiate the manner of earning income without specific inquiry.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)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.
- Pr. CIT v. Mukesh Bhai Raman Lal Tax Appeal 43413 citing399 ITR 189 · 2017 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “A” DELHI
Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA
Assessee by: Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore, CA Department by: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 07 02 2023 Date of pronouncement: 28 03 2023 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A.M.: The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Gurgaon [‘CIT(A)’ in short], dated 30.11.2018 arising from the penalty order dated 22.02.2018 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2013-14.
As per the grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged the imposition of penalty of Rs.15,60,000/- under Section 271AAA of the Act concerning Assessment Year 2013-14 in question.
3. Briefly stated, search and seizure operation under Section I.T.As No.944/Del/2019 2 132 of the Act was carried out at the premises of the assessee on 24.04.2012, i.e., during the Financial Year 2012-13, relevant to Assessment Year 2013-14 in question. It was noticed that the Assessing Officer had made addition of Rs.1 lakh on account of foreign currency inventoried in locker sealed by CBI was not offered as undisclosed in the return of income and addition of Rs.1,55,00,000/- on account of unaccounted cash transactions and cash found during the course of search was set off against the business loss and hence no taxes have been paid. The Assessing Officer while imposing penalty @ 10% only alleged that assessee has failed to substantiate the manner of earning such undisclosed income.
4. Aggrieved by the imposition of penalty, the assessee preferred appeal by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) however declined to entertain the relief pleaded before him.
5. Further aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal.
6. In support of its appeal, the assessee contended before the CIT(A) as well as before us that the amount of Rs.1,55,00,000/- offered in statement under Section 132(4) of the Act has been duly included while determining the taxable income of the assessee. The amount of Rs.1 lakh has also been disclosed in other assessment year and is also duly accounted for. As further contended, having disclosed the amount, such income has been rightly set off against the existing business loss in accordance with the provisions of Income Tax Act in the absence of any bar in this regard. A reference was made to CBDT circular 19/2019 dat. 19/06/2019 for eligibility of set off in the AY 2013-14 in I.T.As No.944/Del/2019 3 question. The ld. counsel thus contends that when the assessee is having huge business losses at its disposal there was no warrant to make payment of taxes without it being due. It was contended that the undisclosed income once included in the return of income partakes the character of regular income for the purposes of set off and carry forward of remaining losses.
7. On appraisal we find force in the plea of assessee in the matter of set off having regard to express CBDT circular. The requirement of payment of taxes under S. 271AAA thus requires to read as having been met. The question of payment of tax would arise only where the tax is due while determining the cumulative taxable income which is not the case here. Further, as per para 5 of the penalty order, the only allegation against the assessee is that the Assessee has failed to substantiate the manner of deriving undisclosed income. However, it is not discernible from the penalty order or from the first appellate order as to whether any query was raised in this regard in the course of search proceedings. The assessee has offered income and in the absence of any specific inquiry from the Authorized Officer under Section 132(4), the assessee was not obliged to volunteer explanation on manner of determining income or substantiation thereof. A reference was made to the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Emirates Technologies P. Ltd., (2017) 399 ITR 189 (Del) and Pr.CIT vs. Sundeep Gupta (DHC) IT Appeal No.967-68/2017 dated 13.11.2017. Thus, the obligations set out in penalty provision are considered to be fully met. The penalty imposed is thus not sustainable in law.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
I.T.As No.944/Del/2019 4 Order pronounced in the open Court on 28/03/2023.
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 →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Sukant Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And 6 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026