“penalty under section 271AAB”

PenaltySection 271AABSection 271AAB112 judgments

The decision most relied on for penalty under section 271AAB is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on penalty under section 271AAB

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory

359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court

2,590

citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows

73 Taxmann.com 248 · 2016 · Supreme Court

953

citing judgments

A notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether penalty proceedings are for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Such lack of specificity vitiates the penalty proceedings.

CIT v. Kaushalya

216 ITR 660 · 1995 · High Court

511

citing judgments

A penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is not invalidated by the Assessing Officer's failure to strike off irrelevant portions in the show cause notice, provided the assessee understood the exact charge and suffered no prejudice, indicating an application of mind by the AO.

CIT v. Mithila Motor's (P.) Ltd.

149 ITR 751 · 1984 · High Court

248

citing judgments

Minor defects or mistakes in a penalty notice issued under Section 274 do not invalidate penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) if the assessee suffers no prejudice and is aware of the charge. However, significant vagueness or ambiguity that demonstrates non-application of mind or causes prejudice can still render the notice invalid.

Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT

161 Taxmann 218 · 2007 · Supreme Court

236

citing judgments

Mens rea is a necessary ingredient to attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, as 'inaccurate' signifies a deliberate act or omission by the assessee. Clause (iii) of Section 271(1) grants discretionary jurisdiction to the assessing authority regarding penalty amounts.

CIT v. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons 1972 CTR (SC) 295

83 ITR 369 · 1972 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied solely on the basis of findings in the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer must discharge the burden of proving concealment or inaccurate particulars with additional material.

Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT

168 ITR 705 · 1987 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

An assessee's agreement to an addition or voluntary disclosure of income does not automatically establish concealment for levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c). While such agreement may arise from various reasons like avoiding litigation, the assessee must still discharge the burden of proving that the addition was not due to concealment.

CIT v. Mahendra C. Shah

299 ITR 305 · 2008 · High Court

citing judgments

During a search operation, the authorized officer recording a statement under Section 132(4) must fully explain Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) to the assessee, particularly the requirement to specify the manner of earning undisclosed income, for a valid claim of penalty immunity. Income not declared or advance tax not paid proportionately before the search date is treated as undisclosed, thereby disallowing advance tax benefits.

Judgments citing penalty under section 271AAB

Sunil Kumar, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward - 9(2), New Delhi

ITA 1713/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Sunil Kumar, Vs Ito, C/O Rupinder Kumar Aggarwal, Ward-9(2), Advocate, New Delhi. B1 A/22, Sector 51, Noida, Uttar Pradesh – 201301. Pan: Aaupj0002F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rupender Kumar Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.01.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Is Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.08.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.3/10076/2019-20 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 26.12.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Ito, Ward-9(2), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Rupender Kumar Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 255(4)Section 271A

dated 31.10.2023 considered the following questions arisen from the difference of opinion between the two Members in this case:- “(i) Whether imposition of penalty under Section 271AAB of the Act by the Assessing Officer is permissible in law where the income has been assessed under Section 143(3) in pursuance

Atman Rajnikant Bhesdadiya L/R. Late Shri Rajnikant Lavjibhai Bhedadiya, Rajkot vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-1, Rajkot

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 112/RJT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 271ASection 274Section 68

Assessee as against the appellate order dated 27.02.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad confirming the levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2017-18. I.T.A No. 112/Rjt/2023 ... income under section 132(4) of the Act cannot be covered within the sweep of “undisclosed income” for the purposes of imposition of penalty under section 271AAB of the Act. In the present case, the penalty has been imposed in terms of the amended provision for imposition of penalty under

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer vs. M/S R.P.Wood Products Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 370/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271A

Udaipur dated 15-03-2023 for the same assessment year i.e.2018- 19 on the very same issue of levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the Acthas already been disposed off by this Bench of ITAT, Jaipur vide its order dated 11-07-2023 (ITA No. 303/JP/2023 for the assessment ... held that : 4. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. The AO has levied the penalty under section 271AAB of the Act in respect of the income surrendered by the assessee on account of LTCG from purchase and sale of equity shares

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer vs. Vijay Kumar Saini, Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 371/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271ASection 274

submitted explanation but the same could not find favour with the AO and he holding that the assessee is liable for imposition of penalty under section 271AAB(1A) of the IT Act, 1961 @ 60% of the undisclosed 3 JCIT vs. Vijay Kumar Saini, Ajmer. income ... note that the disclosure of additional income in the statement recorded under section 132(4) itself is not sufficient to levy the penalty under section 271AAB of the Act until and unless the income so disclosed by the assessee falls in the definition of undisclosed income defined in the explanation

Hari Narain Parwal, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result,the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 273/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (C.A.)&For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 271A

within the ambit of section 271AAB(1)(a) as admittedly, the assessee had satisfied the cumulative conditions prescribed therein. 2) The levy of penalty under section 271AAB is automatic in nature as per the plain reading of the provisions. There was no requirement to look into any reasonable cause adduced ... assessee warranting grant of any immunity from levying of penalty under section 271AAB 3 Therefore, even assuming that the mistake was on the part of the accountant of not entering the entries in the books of account regarding the commodities transaction, which might tantamount to reasonable cause, assessee was still

Bitthal Das Parwal, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result,the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 272/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (C.A.)&For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 271A

Dileshkumar Gordhanbhai Patel, Adipur vs. DCIT, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 100/RJT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Dileshkumar Gordhanbhai Vs. The Dcit, Patel Gandhidham Circle, Venus Plaster Industries, Plot Gandhidham (Kutch) No.89, Ward-2B, Adipur (Kutch) Pan : Aaopp 4484 D अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11.10.2023 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)” For Short] Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Levying Penalty Of Rs. 5,04,500/- Under Section 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” For Short] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Ground Raised By The Assessee Is As Under:- “The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Cit(A)] Erred On Facts As Also In Law In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.5,04,500/- Levied U/S 271Aab Of The Act On The Ad-Hoc Disclosure Of Rs.50,45,000/-. The Penalty Confirmed U/S 271Aab Of The Act Is Totally Unjustified On Facts As Also In Law, May Kindly Be Deleted.” 3. The Primary Argument Of The Learned Counsel For The Assessee Against The Levy Of Penalty Was That The Income Surrendered By The Assessee During

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271A

mere admission of the assessee dehors any material found during search would not qualify as undisclosed income for the purposes of levying penalty under Section 271AAB of the Act. 4. Having stated so, our attention was drawn to the brief facts of the case pointing out that consequent to search ... 271AAA of the Act. 8. Resting his case on the facts and proposition of law as above, he contended that the confirmation of penalty under Section 271AAB of the Act by the ld. CIT(A), therefore, was contrary to law and needed to be deleted. 5 Dileshkumar Gordhanbhai Patel

P R Sudeep, Alathur vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Thrissur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Sept 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Aroraand Shri Manomohan Dasp.R. Sudeep Dy. Cit, Parakkal Bharath Gas Agencies Central Circle Bank Road, Alathur Vs. Thrissur Palakkad 678541 [Pan:Axsps7870B] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.V. Venkitaraman, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing:13.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement:27.09.2023 O R D E R Persanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Confirmation Of Penalty Under Section 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’)For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15, Levied Per Order Dated 28.6.2017, In First Appeal By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kochi-3 [Cit(A)], Vide His Order Dated 01.01.2021. 2. The Assessee’S Case Before Us & The Only One At That, Was That The Penalty Is Not Maintainable As Its Initiation, Upon Expressing Satisfaction In Its Respect In The Assessment Order Dated 27.12.2016, By Issue Of Show Cause Notice U/S. 274 Of Even Date, Is Bad In Law Inasmuch As It Is Qua Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C), No Longer Applicable For Search Cases, I.E.,01/7/2007 Onwards & Not As U/S. 271Aab Of The Act, Where The Search Is Initiated On Or After 01/7/2012 & For Which We Were Taken By Sh. Venkitaraman, The Learned Counsel For The Assessee, Through Sections 271 And271Aab Of The Act, As Well As The Impugned Notice (Pb Pg. 24).

For Appellant: Shri K.V. Venkitaraman, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 292B

Date of Pronouncement:27.09.2023 O R D E R PerSanjay Arora, AM This is an Appeal by the Assessee against the confirmation of penalty under section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’)for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15, levied per order dated 28.6.2017, in first appeal

Prafulla Shashikant Vaidya, Thane vs. DCIT, CC-1, Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 469/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Section 271Section 271ASection 274

have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material placed on record. The AO has levied the penalty under section 271AAB of the Act in respect of the income surrendered by the assessee. The question arises whether the 6 Shri Prafulla Shashikant Vaidya surrender made by the assessee ... assessee has disclosed the income by confirming statement of the director of valuable group. However, for the purpose of levying the penalty under section 271AAB, the primary condition is that the assessee shall pay the penalty equivalent to 10 percent, 20 percent or 30 percent of undisclosed income of specified

DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Ajmer vs. Yashwant Kumar Sharma, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

ITA 210/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 210/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer cuke Vs. Yashwant Kumar Sharma F-108, Industrial Area, Makhupura Parbatpura, Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ASWPS 3791 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@C.O. No. 04/JP/2023 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 210/JP/2023) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 Yashwant Kumar Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. James Kurian (CIT) &

Section 139(1)Section 271ASection 274

deleting the penalty levied under section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act 1961, failing to keep in mind the scheme of law wherein penalty under section 271AAB would be attracted automatically once income unearthed as a result of search action is disclosed in the return of income. 5. Ground ... decision dated 05.02.2020 in ITA No 869/Ind/2018 the case of Shri Ashok Bhatia v DCIT Central Circle-1 Indore held that for levying penalty under section 271AAB of the Act, the Ld. A.O needs to primarily issue notice under section 274 of the Act so for initiating proceedings under section

R P Wood Products Pvt Ltd, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 302/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C. M Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Shailendra Sharma (CIT) a

Section 132Section 153ASection 271ASection 274

breach of the specific penal provisions of the Income Tax Act committed by the assessee. Further, Assessing Officer Central Circle-Ajmer levied the penalty under section 271AAB(1A) of the Income Tax Act when no such penalty u/s 271AAB(1) of the Income Tax Act has been provided under ... found to be so had the search not been conducted. From the bare perusal of the above provisions the following emerges; (i) The penalty under section 271AAB is neither automatic nor mandatory but discretionary as it uses the words “AO may direct”. (ii) The discretionary penalty under section 271AAB

R P Wood Products Private Limited, Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 168/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 250Section 271Section 271ASection 274

submitted explanation but the same could not find favour with the AO and he holding that the assessee is liable for imposition of penalty under section 271AAB(1A) of the IT Act, 1961 @ 60% of the undisclosed income of Rs. 93,59,859/-, imposed penalty ... breach of the specific penal provisions of the Income Tax Act committed by the assessee. Further, Assessing Officer Central Circle-Ajmer levied the penalty under section 271AAB(1A) of the Income Tax Act when no such penalty u/s 271AAB(1) of the Income Tax Act has been provided under

Ghanshyam Tak, Naya Ghar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 167/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 250Section 271Section 271ASection 274

submitted explanation but the same could not find favour with the AO and he holding that the assessee is liable for imposition of penalty under section 271AAB(1A) of the IT Act, 1961 @ 60% of the undisclosed income of Rs. 1,39,39,309/-, imposed penalty ... breach of the specific penal provisions of the Income Tax Act committed by the assessee. Further, Assessing Officer Central Circle-Ajmer levied the penalty under section 271AAB(1A) of the Income Tax Act when no such penalty u/s 271AAB(1) of the Income Tax Act has been provided under

Paras Mal Jain, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 353/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143Section 271ASection 274

specified by the AO in the show cause notice and further the AO is required to give a finding while imposing the penalty under section 271AAB. Even if the AO is satisfied and come to the conclusion that the assessee has not recorded the undisclosed income in the books ... default and charge against the assessee 6 SHRI PARAS MAL JAIN VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR which necessitated the levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the Act. Consequently, the assessee was not given an opportunity to explain his case for specific default attracting the levy of penalty

ACIT, Central Circle-3, Patna vs. Subhash Pd. Yadav, Patna

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 97/PAT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 275

Yadav under section 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated for concealment of income”. 5. Ld. Assessing Officer thereafter imposed a penalty under section 271AAB(1A) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty order is a very brief order, which reads as under:- “A search and seizure operation

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur vs. Shri Sandeep Indrajeet Suri, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 233/NAG/2017[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur13 Feb 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.233/Nag/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Dcit, Central Circle- Shri Sandeep Indrajeet Suri, 2(1), Nagpur. Vs 600/A-12, Ratandeep Housing Society, Byramji Town, Nagpur. Pan: Aveps 0599 R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 144Section 153ASection 271A

case. iv) Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 2. Brief facts: The Assessing Officer (AO) levied penalty under section 271AAB of the Act of Rs.90,00,000/-. There was a search under section 132 of the Act on 07.03.2013 in the case of Kondawar ... ground that there was no search under section 132 of the Act in the case of the assessee. The ld.CIT(A) held that penalty under section 271AAB can be levied only if there is search under section 132 of the Act in the case of assessee. 4. Aggrieved

Shri Ramavtar Mandavewala, Mumbai vs. Jt. CIT (OSD)-CC- 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1972/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Kavitha Rajagopal () Shri Ramavatar Mandavewala Vs Jt.Cit(Osd)-Cc-2(4), Mumbai 1304, Advent Palazzo Ram Baug Lane Off S V Road, Malad East Pan : Aabpm6600R Appellant Respondent

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271A

that upon search under section 132 of the Act, any 3 undisclosed income, if identified, will be the prima facie requirement to levy penalty under section 271AAB. The present case in hand, does not satisfy the prima facie requirement as search was conducted in M/s Gold Sukh Safety Vaults

Ashish Mittal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-7, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 8172/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

facts of the case as the same are not search cases and explanation 5A was not operative in such cited cases. Penalty under Section 271AAB;- 19. Penalty under section 271AAB is applicable to the search year where undisclosed income has been found during the course of search

Ashish Mittal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-7, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 8171/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

Ashish Mittal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-7, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 8170/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 153ASection 271Section 271A