Anuj Mathur Vs DCIT (ITAT Jaipur)
The assessee appealed against the order of the CIT(A)-4, Jaipur dated 17 November 2017, confirming a penalty of ₹70,10,000 under Section 271AAB for Assessment Year 2015-16. The assessee, an individual earning income from salary, house property, and other sources, was subjected to a search under Section 132 on 30 October 2014, during which he surrendered income of ₹7,01,00,000. In his return filed on 30 September 2015, he declared total income of ₹7,88,48,920 including the surrendered amount, which the Assessing Officer accepted under Section 143(3) read with Section 153B(1). Subsequently, the AO levied penalty under Section 271AAB on the surrendered income. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty without considering the assessee’s submissions, following which the assessee appealed before the ITAT.
At the outset, the Tribunal noted that the penalty in this case was linked to the same search as in the case of another individual, for whom arguments on validity of penalty notices and application of Section 271AAB were already examined. The assessee’s representative argued that the AO issued penalty notices mechanically, without specifying the clause under Section 271AAB(1)—whether (a), (b), or (c)—under which penalty was proposed. It was contended that failure to specify the exact charge rendered the notice invalid, relying on judicial precedents including the Karnataka High Court decision in Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, Chennai Tribunal rulings, and other High Court and ITAT decisions.
