| |
| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 1384 (Jp-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 271AAB
Jewellery found during search belonged to assessee's family and didn't belong to assessee alone. Therefore, merely because assessee had declared the same in his statement recorded under section 132(4), it could not be regarded as undisclosed income of assessee in absence of any fact or material to establish that entire jewellery was acquired by assessee and belonged to assessee alone. For the purposes of determining undisclosed income by way of investment in such jewellery, valuation at current rates by Department Valuer was not correct and what had to be determined was the value/cost in the year of acquisition/investment however, no efforts had been made by department. Therefore, mere disclosure of such jewellery in statement of assessee recorded under section 132(4) did not represent undisclosed income as defined in explanation to section 271AAB and, therefore, penalty levied under section 271AAB was not sustainable.
|
Penalty under section 271AAB - Leviability vis-a-vis undisclosed income - Assessee surrendered excess jewellery in statement recorded under section 132(4) -
During the course of search, statement of assessee was recorded under section 132(4) wherein he surrendered income on account of excess jewellery amounting to Rs. 2 crores. Thereafter, assessee filed return declaring total income which included additional income surrendered during search. AO accepted the returned income and levied penalty under section 271AAB. Assessee challenged this.Held: Jewellery found during the course of search belonged to assessee's family and didn't belong to assessee alone. Therefore, merely because assessee had declared the same in his statement recorded under section 132(4), it could not be regarded as undisclosed income of assessee in absence of any fact or material to establish that entire jewellery was acquired by assessee and belonged to assessee alone. For the purposes of determining undisclosed income by way of investment in such jewellery, valuation at current rates by Department Valuer was not correct and what had to be determined was the value/cost in the year of acquisition/investment however, no efforts had been made by department. Therefore, mere disclosure of such jewellery in statement of assessee recorded under section 132(4) did not represent undisclosed income as defined in explanation to section 271AAB and, therefore, penalty levied under section 271AAB was not sustainable.
Followed:CIT., Alwar v. Satya Narain Patni (2014) 46 Taxmann.com 440 (Raj) : 2014 TaxPub(DT) 3193 (Raj-HC).
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2015-16
IN THE ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|