Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench, Visakhapatnam

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee was subjected to search proceedings under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 24-11-2015, during which silver jewelry valued at Rs. 46,84,044/- was found in his possession. The assessee admitted to being unable to substantiate the source of the silver articles and accepted the value as undisclosed income. The assessee filed his return of income for AY 2016-17 on 08-03-2017, declaring an income of Rs. 42,93,470/-. However, he did not include the additional income disclosed during the search proceedings. The Assessing Officer (AO) did not accept the explanation and made an addition of the balance amount of investment of Rs. 23,49,000/-. The AO imposed a penalty under Section 271AAB(1) of the Act at the rate of 60% of the undisclosed income of Rs. 23,35,044/- amounting to Rs. 14,01,026/-, which was sustained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The assessee appealed against the order, contending that the penalty proceedings were initiated without valid assumption of jurisdiction by the AO.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and law applicable to the case.
• 2. Whether the penalty order passed under Section 271AAB(1), dated 21-01-2022, can be sustained.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• M/s River Valley Flour Mills Pvt. ltd. Vs. ACIT, Central Circle -1

  Patna Bench benchAY 2015-16Allowed

• Sanjay Kumar Khemka vs. DCIT, CC-3(4), Kolkata

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2020-21Allowed

• Sanjay Kumar Khemka vs. DCIT, CC-3(4), Kolkata

• Rishi Kyal vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(2), Kolkata

• Shri Umesh Saboo vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

  Jaipur bench

• Raman Gupta vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

  Delhi Bench 'F', Delhi benchAY 2014-15Allowed