Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Shri Ram Das Sonkia, Jaipur.

based on the entries in the diary regarding investment in real estate. The due date of filing of return of income under section 139(1) was 30th September, 2015. It is undisputed fact that the assessee is an Individual and was not maintaining regular books of account. Therefore, the transactions recorded in the pocket diary found during the course of search itself would not lead to the presumption that the assessee would not have offered this income to tax if the search is not conducted on 30th October, 2014. Further, the entries in the diary itself do no not represent the income of the assessee during the year under consideration though the assessee was required to explain the source of investment in question and that source would be the income of the assessee. It is most likely that the investment in question was made from the unaccounted income of preceding years. Hence the investment in the real estate itself would not reveal the nature of income and the source of income of the year under consideration. It is a pre-condition for invoking the provisions of section 271AAB that the assessee admitted the undisclosed income in the statement under section 132(4). The definition of 'undisclosed income' is provided in section 271AAB itself and, therefore, the AO in the proceedings under section 271AAB has to examine all the facts of the case and then arrive to the conclusion that the income disclosed by the assessee falls in the definition of undisclosed income as stipulated in the explanation to said section. The first question arises is whether the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is mandatory and consequential to the disclosure of income by the assessee under section 132(4) or the AO has to take a decision whether the given case has satisfied the requirements for levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the Act. In order to consider this issue, the provisions of section 271AAB are to be analyzed. For ready reference, we quote section 271AAB as under :-

before imposing the penalty under sec. 271AAB, the AO has to issue a show cause notice and give a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Thus the levy of penalty u/s. 271AAB is not automatic but the A.O. has to take a decision to impose the penalty after giving a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. It is statutory requirement that the explanation of the assessee for not fulfilling the conditions as prescribed u/s 271AAB of the Act is required to be considered by the AO and particularly whether the explanation furnished by the assessee is bonafide and non-compliance of the same is due to the reason beyond the control of the assessee. Therefore, the penalty u/s 271AAB is not a consequential act but the AO has to first initiate proceedings by issuing a show cause notice and after considering the explanation and reply of the assessee has to take a decision. This requirement of giving an opportunity of hearing itself makes it clear that the penalty u/s 271AAB is not mandatory but the AO has to take a decision based on the facts and circumstances of the case otherwise there is no requirement of issuing any notice for initiation of proceedings but the levy of penalty would be consequential and only computation of the quantum was to be done by the AO as in the case of levy of interest and fee u/s 234A to E. Even the quantum of penalty leviable u/s 271AAB is also subject to the condition prescribed under clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (1) and the AO has to again give a finding for levy of penalty @ 10% or 20% or 30% of the undisclosed income. Thus the AO is bound to take a decision as to what default is committed by the assessee and which particular clause of section 271AAB(1) is attracted on such default. Further, mere disclosure of income under section 132(4) would not ipso facto par take the character of undisclosed income but the facts of each case are required to be analyzed in objective manner so as to attract the provisions of section 271AAB of the Act. Since it is not automatic but the AO has to give a finding that the case of the assessee falls in the Shri Ram Das Sonkia, Jaipur.

The Ld. A.R. further stated that penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act is not mandatory but Shri Ram Das Sonkia, Jaipur.

discretionary. The provisions of section 271AAB of the Act is parimateria with that of section 158BFA of the Act relating to block assessment and accordingly argued that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but discretionary. When there is reasonable cause, the penalty is not exigible. The Ld. A.R. taken us to the section 271AAB of the Act and also section 158BFA(2) of the Act and argued that the words used in section 271AAB of the Act and the words used in section 158BFA(2) of the Act are identical. Hence, argued that the penalty section 271AAB of the Act penalty is not automatic and it is on the merits of each case. For ready reference, we reproduce hereunder section 158BFA (2) of the Act and section 271AAB of the Act which reads as under;

i) The assessee has substantiated the manner in which the income was derived.

ii) Furnished the return of income therein and

iii) Paid the tax along with interest.

Based on the said finding, according to AO, the assessee satisfies the conditions enumerated in sec. 271AAB(i)(a) of the Act and thereafter levied ten percent of Rs.3 cr., which have been deleted by the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A).

4. The Ld. DR brought to our notice that in the very same group case of Manoj Beswal & Ors. the Tribunal had confirmed the levy of penalty and contended before us that penalty u/s. 271AAB of the Act is mandatory and therefore, according to Ld. DR, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty by stating that the assessee did not had any 'mens rea' not to disclose the amount in question. According to him, penalty has to be mandatorily levied u/s. 271AAB of the Act on the undisclosed income found during search. On the other hand, Ld. AR Shri Miraz D. Shah, supporting the decision of Ld. CIT(A) made contentions though taken up before the Ld. CIT(A) but has not been adjudicated on those averments, which the Ld. AR urges before us to consider while adjudicating the appeal of the Revenue. The Ld. AR also pointed out that the contentions which he is going to raise has been taken up before the AO also, however, according to Ld. Counsel, those legal arguments were not considered by the AO in the right perspective. The first contention of the Ld. AR is that since Sec. 271AAB of the Act is a penalty section it should be construed strictly, which we agree being it is a trite law that penalty provisions have to be strictly interpreted. Next contention of Ld. AR is that sec. 271AAB of the Act is not mandatory because Parliament in its wisdom has used the word 'may' and not 'shall'. So, according to him, it is the discretion bestowed upon the AO whether to initiate and impose penalty u/s. 271AAB of the Act. We agree with the said contention of Ld. AR because when a similar issue was adjudicated by ITAT Lucknow (the author of this order was a member of the Bench) in Sandeep Chandak & Ors. Vs. CIT (2017) 55 ITR (Trib) 209 and 2017 (5) TMI 675- ITAT-Lucknow in ITA No. 416, 417 and 418/LKW/2016 dated 30.01.2017 while adjudicating a case where penalty was levied under section 271AAB of the Act it was held that the provisions of Sec. 271AAB of the Act are not mandatory, which means that penalty need not be levied in each and every case wherever the assessee has made default as stated in clauses (a),