Section 271AAB(1A) of the Income Tax Act
The decision most relied on for Section 271AAB(1A) is Vikram Singh v. Cit (111 Taxmann.com 119), cited in 45 of the 66 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.
Leading authorities on Section 271AAB(1A)
An Additional Commissioner's sanction is valid for issuing a notice under Section 148, as the definition of 'Joint Commissioner' in Section 2(28C) is inclusive and encompasses an Additional Commissioner. Therefore, a notice issued with such sanction is not without jurisdiction.
Previous approval of the Additional CIT is required to pass an assessment order under Chapter XIV-B of the Income Tax Act. The Additional CIT is a competent authority to grant this approval.
Cases cited together with Arun Kumar Maheshwari v. ITO, including Dharam Pal Singh Rao v. ITO and Smt. Maya Rastogi v. CIT, are used to support a finding that there is no merit in an appeal, indicating a consistent legal position across multiple High Court judgments.
Penalty under section 271AAB cannot be automatically levied based solely on an admission of income, especially if the circumstances differ from those in the cited judgment where incriminating materials were also seized.
The levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act is not mandatory and can be quashed if it does not pass the mandate of the provisions of the said section.
