Gujarat High Court
The Principal Commissioner Of Income ... vs M/S Shreeji Corporation on 23 July, 2019
Author: J. B. Pardiwala
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala, A.C. Rao
C/TAXAP/468/2019 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/TAX APPEAL NO. 468 of 2019
==============================================================================
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VADODARA- 1 Versus M/S SHREEJI CORPORATION ============================================================================== Appearance:
MR VARUN K PATEL for the Appellant(s)No. 1 for the Opponent(s)No. 1============================================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C. RAO Date: 23/07/2019 ORALORDER (PER: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) This Tax Appeal is admitted on the following two substantial questions of law :
"(a) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in law and on facts in upholding the order of CIT(A) deleting penalty u/s. 271AAB of the Income Tax Act imposed penalty by the Assessing Officer ?
(b) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in law and on facts in holding that sec. 271AAB is not applicable in the case of assessment framed u/s 153C and the said Sec. is applicable only in the case of assessment framed u/s 153A and 143(3) of the Act, despite the fact that the said section is applicable to the cases where search has been initiated on or after 01.07.2012 and the amendment has been Page 1 of 2 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 25 00:38:51 IST 2019 C/TAXAP/468/2019 ORDER brought in with the specific mention of "Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act" ?
(c) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in law and on facts in holding that, in the absence of search u/s 132 of the Act, the consequential or incidental assessment proceedings u/s 153C of the Act will not entitle the A.O. to assume jurisdiction u/s 271AAB of the Act for the purposes of imposition of penalty, even when the assessee has given statement during search operation and all the conditions of the sec. 271AAB(1)(a) are fulfilled and the definition of "specified previous year" and "undisclosed income" as outlined in the Explanation to section 271AAB are squarely applicable to the facts of the assessee ?
(d) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in law and on facts in since the sub-section (2) of 271AAB denies imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in factual matrix of the present case wherein the assessee has given himself statement during search operation disclosing his undisclosed income, the A.O. has rightly invoked sec. 271AAB as the factual matrix of the case falls under the definition of "undisclosed income" and the relevant year in which the said penalty is enforced also falls under the definition of "specified previous year" ?"
(J. B. PARDIWALA,J.) (A. C. RAO,J.) /MOINUDDIN Page 2 of 2 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 25 00:38:51 IST 2019